Realignment talk not going away

[USC Traveler 488]

13 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

bringing those teams to the B1G won't increase how many they get in too much, just who gets in.  Usually 2, at most 4. 

I don't see where a lot of 3 loss teams are making this.  Rarity perhaps.   

Exactly.  

The wins any additional BIG or SEC teams need to get to the playoff are mostly going to come vs the other teams in the conference.

And a 3 loss team having a strong enough resume to get in (needing lots of losses across CFB) is going to be threading a very small needle.  That's going to be a rare event.

[USC Traveler 488]

13 hours ago, bullet said:

I think the point was that there wasn't sufficient support at that point in time, not that there was no support.  McMurphy has consistently said the Big 10 wants Washington and Oregon and that they are likely to be in by 2031 is not before.  Possibly in two yeas.  Possibly sooner.  Some B10 presidents want to digest their latest additions first.

Bullet- you're one of the sharpest minds in the realignment world.  Don't you find it odd that McMurphy and Dodds (the only reporters who have pushed the PNW to the BIG idea) had zero intel when the BIG added Corn, RU, MD, USC and UCLA, but a month after the LA schools joined, they had weekly updates on UW and UO's talks with the BIG ?

I've thought from the beginning they've been used as pawns by the B12/networks to destabilize the Four Corners by constantly reminding them that UW/UO are dying to join the BIG.

It's also possible that some info has come from Eugene, as they want their recruits to believe they're joining the BIG very soon.

Meanwhile, the people who are the most tied into the BIG (Auerbach, Rittenberg, Thamel) have all said the same 3 things for the last 10 months, and Auerbach just reiterated some of it last week:

1. OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, WI are not taking pay cuts and don't want to add trips to the PNW to their schedules.

2. The lower-mid tier BIG schools (IU, PU, IL, Rutgers, etc) don't want to take additional Ls while also taking less money, and they don't want their games shifted onto streaming because there are too many conference games for their broadcast partners to handle.

3. ND has an open invitation, and there are ACC schools that the BIG covets, but there is no support for PNW expansion.  

 

Add to that the fact that Thamel and the LAT reported that USC lobbied from day 1 against letting in other West Coast schools.  I've heard that UCLA has been a strong "No" also.  The LA schools obviously don't run the BIG, but they just interviewed and voted on the new commissioner, so they definitely have a voice.

Finally, we've seen BIG West schools ADs and coaches talk about getting players out of CA.  Why would they want to add West coast competitors ?

I'll ask the question I've asked before itt- exactly which 12 schools in the BIG are going to vote to add the PNW schools before they see what they can accomplish raiding the ACC ?

The PNW schools aren't going SEC.  If the BIG strikes out with the ACC, they can always add schools at that time if they feel like the need.  

But that's 10-12 years away.

 

 

 

Zeros have a small tv market and no recruiting grounds, but are dirty recruiters and very aggressive in NIL. 

All downside/no upside for existing BIG schools- especially mid-tier and lower tiers programs like IA, MN, PU.

[USC Traveler 488]

12 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

t.boone lived to 91

phil is 85

knight had 2 sons, matthew died in a scuba accident, travis went to... portland state

... spins the wheel ....

checks notes......  oSu got left behind

it's now or never for the daffys

I agree.  I think they're making the wrong move to not go B12.  PAC is already a second-tier conference.  

But they are apparently focused on the easiest path to the playoffs because of Knight's age.  

Word is that they want to get as many bites at the apple while he's alive.

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/22/2023 at 6:32 PM, notre dame joe said:

The op-ed was vanilla and probably went through 20 drafts from an outside firm.  None of the critics seem to have read it.  However they are not tone deaf.  Jack and Jenkins were not speaking from a position of strength.  I don't see how the op-ed can be a CR indicator compared to how they just moved our Hockey from the East to the BUG. 

Did not realize that they had moved hockey to the BIG.

Very interesting. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

23 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Exactly.  

The wins any additional BIG or SEC teams need to get to the playoff are mostly going to come vs the other teams in the conference.

And a 3 loss team having a strong enough resume to get in (needing lots of losses across CFB) is going to be threading a very small needle.  That's going to be a rare event.

Per @TKthunder2's point of history may not be as helpful going forward, i decided to do a little regression analysis to figure out how many two-loss or better teams we may see in conference play after realignment.   What's different isn't really the brands, those always existed.   And the brands played each other.   In the new SEC/B1G you've got about 40-50% heavy brand hitters, which is similar to the 12 team SEC/B1G, so percentage wise that doesn't change much.   What benefits is when Bama's down, there is a better chance someone else is up.    The numbers are just more consistent year over year as teams rise and fall.

Assuming the current version of the P5 remains as is AND assuming everyone goes to 9 conference games, that means that just between the B1G and SEC we are likely to see about 5.12 two-loss or better teams, in conference play, every year.   Including the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12, that total number comes up to 10.88.   

Now those are just losses in conference.  There is a bit of an assumption that the top ten teams won't have additional losses out of conference, but it could happen.   OOC is a bit harder to napkin math.   But generally speaking, if a big brand takes out a big brand in a preseason match up, it is super hard for that school to get back into the narrative, without thumping whoever is at the top.  If you're not a big brand and lose, you're toast.   Projected conference play two-loss or better:

• Big/SEC = 5.12 (2.56/each)
• ACC = 2.24
• B12 = 1.92
• Pac = 1.6

You also have to deal with Notre Dame in here as well, which also has the possibility of degrading the ACC's numbers a bit if they run, but if they make it every other year, we're at 11.38 two-loss or less teams available for 12 spots. 

So, could 3 losses make a run, possibly, but I think you'd have to have a super good story to tell as to why you should jump two losses.   Because, as you hear often, "they had their chance".   And with nearly 3 teams a year getting in from either the B1G or SEC each year with only two-losses or left, we're going 4-5 deep on the threes and there are a ton of them - nearly 9 a year from the SEC/B1G alone.   You'd really have to stand out.

[DFW Horn 6123]

45 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Did not realize that they had moved hockey to the BIG.

Very interesting. 

Where would ND move hockey if not the B1G?

ACC supports everything else, including lacrosse. I guess ND could've petitioned Hockey East for membership to be with Boston College and Providence, among others. 

Edited April 25, 2023 by DFW Horn

[Richard Kimball 1494]

25 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I agree.  I think they're making the wrong move to not go B12.  PAC is already a second-tier conference.  

But they are apparently focused on the easiest path to the playoffs because of Knight's age.  

Word is that they want to get as many bites at the apple while he's alive.

I believe that. Prior to Knight opening up the money cannons, Oregon had never been Bo or Diddly. @Hagbard Celine summed it up well. 

Some of the old guard PAC schools were in a state of denial. They thought they were too superior to even consider the possibility of affiliating with those flyover country schools. 

And no, Oregon doesn't have any friends. Knight's dumped a BILLION dollars into Oregon. He raised their profile, but there's not much higher for them to climb. Washington is, forgive me, invisible. 

Now, the remaining PAC is coming close to having to make a real choice. See which schools the B12 throws a life line to (never thought I'd be typing that) or band together like the irate 8, take the best of what they can find, and start trying to rebuild their reputation. The irate 8 had no love for each other, but recognized they were in the same bunker and nobody else loved them enough to throw them a life line. What they had going for them that the remaining PAC doesn't is that their egos were never allowed to get overinflated, anyway. 

 

[gatormarc 911]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:04 AM, Hurtlocker said:

Non-con inventory is worthless outside made for TV match-ups.

Florida-FSU?

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Florida-FSU?

Yeah that's one of the handful of always on OOC games.   WVU/Pitt, Iowa/Iowa State, Kentucky/Louisville, Georiga/Tech, Bedlam if they do it, Clemson/SC, i'm sure there are more but I'm not thinking of any standouts that go yearly.   The problem is that's 1 of 4 OOC games for the SEC/ACC.   So when they have value, the non-con still comes out to next to nothing.  

And while those few do factor in, the biggest reason they don't matter is they're inconsistent.   With a conference schedule you will know how many times Texas will play Bama over the life of a contract and you have the home and homes.   So you have the game whether its Florida/LSU or LSU/Florida.   Florida/FSU, is only at Florida half the time.   The other half of the value goes to the ACC.  For the rest of the big OOC games, like if USC plays a home and home against Texas, that amounts to one game out of like less than 1% of the total games on the contract.

[gatormarc 911]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah that's one of the handful of always on OOC games.   WVU/Pitt, Iowa/Iowa State, Kentucky/Louisville, Georiga/Tech, Bedlam if they do it, Clemson/SC, i'm sure there are more but I'm not thinking of any standouts that go yearly.   The problem is that's 1 of 4 OOC games for the SEC/ACC.   So when they have value, the non-con still comes out to next to nothing.  

And while those few do factor in, the biggest reason they don't matter is they're inconsistent.   With a conference schedule you will know how many times Texas will play Bama over the life of a contract and you have the home and homes.   So you have the game whether its Florida/LSU or LSU/Florida.   Florida/FSU, is only at Florida half the time.   The other half of the value goes to the ACC.  For the rest of the big OOC games, like if USC plays a home and home against Texas, that amounts to one game out of like less than 1% of the total games on the contract.

True.

I guess the challenge is that even with something like a P5 opponent requirement, someone will still try to game it, by scheduling Duke or getting a release to play Independent UConn instead.

[gatormarc 911]

For a moment, I had a thought that it might be in ESPN's best interest to encourage new SEC-ACC matchups since they'd get paid on both ends of the deal, but they've already got Clemson and FSU locked in to an SEC OOC game and they are by far the biggest 2 draws. And Florida already has series with Miami and NCState coming up. 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

7 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

For a moment, I had a thought that it might be in ESPN's best interest to encourage new SEC-ACC matchups since they'd get paid on both ends of the deal, but they've already got Clemson and FSU locked in to an SEC OOC game and they are by far the biggest 2 draws. And Florida already has series with Miami and NCState coming up. 

 

It does have value, but do your point, it needs to be scheduled correctly.   If you look at the Big12/SEC challenge in basketball, they didn't really mix it up.   Nearly every year it was Kentucky/Kansas.   I think one year it was Texas/Kentucky, but mostly Texas/Tennessee.

Now if you did a scheduling agreement, you could increase the overall value.   So if ALL of the ACC's OOC games were against the SEC on ESPN and lets say all the Big 12s were against the Big Ten on Fox, you could increase the base value of all those games.   Even though its not always Florida/Florida State, Florida/Duke is better than Florida/McNeese State.   

Per above though, the powers that be try and schedule the biggest hits instead of just randomizing it.   

[gatormarc 911]

33 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

It does have value, but do your point, it needs to be scheduled correctly.   If you look at the Big12/SEC challenge in basketball, they didn't really mix it up.   Nearly every year it was Kentucky/Kansas.   I think one year it was Texas/Kentucky, but mostly Texas/Tennessee.

I think they try to re-balance it every year. I know UF has played against most of the conference.

I think Texas/Tennessee may be a recency bias thing since they have played the last 2 seasons.

Kansas/Kentucky has happened a lot though, for sure.

34 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Now if you did a scheduling agreement, you could increase the overall value.   So if ALL of the ACC's OOC games were against the SEC on ESPN and lets say all the Big 12s were against the Big Ten on Fox, you could increase the base value of all those games.

Do you mean all 3/4 OOC games for each team are locked into a partner conference?

35 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Even though its not always Florida/Florida State, Florida/Duke is better than Florida/McNeese State.   

If yes to the above, then yes. If you mean a locked in P5 opponent, this is a great example as this only works if it's an additional game on top of the existing rivalries. Which is hard to force as it would be an uneven requirement.

While I think UF-FSU, UGA-GT, and USC-Clem is safe, I could see Kentucky saying that "<random ACC team> fills the Louisville gap" which is a net loss most years.

If it was a one or two season thing, maybe. If it became a yearly challenge, then I would think you would have to incorporate the existing rivalries in which would mean most of the value of the deal already exists and is it worth it?

Plus, this is all blue skying here and would be tough to do short term -- which is when the ACC/ESPN would need it for stability.

If we go to 9 conference games, UF is already going to have to cut an OOC game in 2024, 2025, 2026. Then again, UF is playing 2 ACC teams each those years, so I guess it could just be rolled in which is great but it doesn't help improve ACC stability more than it is today and it doesn't bring ESPN extra money.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

11 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

Do you mean all 3/4 OOC games for each team are locked into a partner conference?

If yes to the above, then yes. If you mean a locked in P5 opponent, this is a great example as this only works if it's an additional game on top of the existing rivalries. Which is hard to force as it would be an uneven requirement.

While I think UF-FSU, UGA-GT, and USC-Clem is safe, I could see Kentucky saying that "<random ACC team> fills the Louisville gap" which is a net loss most years.

If it was a one or two season thing, maybe. If it became a yearly challenge, then I would think you would have to incorporate the existing rivalries in which would mean most of the value of the deal already exists and is it worth it?

Plus, this is all blue skying here and would be tough to do short term -- which is when the ACC/ESPN would need it for stability.

If we go to 9 conference games, UF is already going to have to cut an OOC game in 2024, 2025, 2026. Then again, UF is playing 2 ACC teams each those years, so I guess it could just be rolled in which is great but it doesn't help improve ACC stability more than it is today and it doesn't bring ESPN extra money.

Yes, it would have to be part of a larger movement to generate two things:

1. a more consistent strength of schedule over 12 games.   Nothing will ever be exact, but at least starting with all P5 events the playing field considerably.  Our 11 P5 and one G6.   Make it so anything outside that doesn't count as a game for the playoffs.   Folks will change schedules quick.   Watch how fast the FCS is scheduled in the spring for a money making game.
2. generate more revenue.   If its all 12, and all P5, it will boost the quarter to third of the games that are not generating much now.

It works best if its 8 conference and 4 OOC in H-H, but it looks like everyone is moving to 9 conference games soon. (as soon as the SEC does it the ACC will have no choice but to follow).   So what you could do is a scheduling agreement for two games a year (one home, one away).   To your point it makes most sense when its the same network setting it up, like SEC/ACC, B12/B1G.   But you could mix it up with creative contracts.  You'd need to protect current rivalries and then add to it.   So Florida may always have FSU/Miami, Kentucky with Louisville, etc, then fill in the gaps with the rest.

Kentucky will bitch less about Louisville if everyone in the P5 is playing 11-12 P5 games a season.  

[Hagbard Celine 10852]

3 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

I agree.  I think they're making the wrong move to not go B12.  PAC is already a second-tier conference.  

But they are apparently focused on the easiest path to the playoffs because of Knight's age.  

Word is that they want to get as many bites at the apple while he's alive.

at the expense of being left out?   that's very jerry-jones-ish

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

at the expense of being left out?   that's very jerry-jones-ish

Good analogy my friend.

The combination of arrogance, entitlement and an unrealistic view of what you bring to the table is a deadly combo- whether in the NFL or CFB.

[Crockett 490]

5 hours ago, Richard Kimball said:

 

 

This perfectly captures the WAC-10.

[bullet 1596]

18 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

just as good a time as any to remind newbs and drive-bys that when the Orphan 5 offered their share of corn and ralph exit fees to "try to make the math work", texas said no, you keep that cash, and aggy said "GIVE US OUR FUCKING MONEY"....

chip brown is not popular around here, but it's appropriate to dial up the wayback machine for a reminder of what could should have been....

 

One thing Chip missed in his story.  Scott flew into Lawrence after the mess in College Station.  KU was the replacement for A&M, not Utah.

On Shaggy people were following his plane with flighttracker.

[bullet 1596]

20 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I do love you going back, but I'd still call a 7% chance of grabbing a wild card as a 3 loss team a rarity.  That also basically means that 2 loss or less teams have a 93% chance of making it.   So, it will happen, but, per your point, we shouldn't expect a lot of them.

Its 21 of 130 wildcards.  Not sure how you are getting 7%.

[bullet 1596]

2 losses do sometimes get beat out by 3 loss teams.  In 2018, 2 loss WSU was #13 in the CFP.  Florida, LSU and PSU were ahead of them with 3 losses.

In 2009 PSU was #13 with 2 losses.  Virginia Tech and LSU were ahead with 3 losses.

It hasn't happened often, but I think it will happen more often with the USCUCLAOUT moves.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

38 minutes ago, bullet said:

One thing Chip missed in his story.  Scott flew into Lawrence after the mess in College Station.  KU was the replacement for A&M, not Utah.

On Shaggy people were following his plane with flighttracker.

I miss the days of flightaware updates scanning the skies like we're tracking a moon landing.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

22 minutes ago, bullet said:

2 losses do sometimes get beat out by 3 loss teams.  In 2018, 2 loss WSU was #13 in the CFP.  Florida, LSU and PSU were ahead of them with 3 losses.

In 2009 PSU was #13 with 2 losses.  Virginia Tech and LSU were ahead with 3 losses.

It hasn't happened often, but I think it will happen more often with the USCUCLAOUT moves.

Right, it's not absolute, its probability.   The point here isn't that no three loss teams would make it into the CFP, it's that with the expansion of conferences, even with going to 9 conference games, there should be a sizable amount of two loss teams to fill the slots.  Never, under any circumstance, was it stated that it would never happen, just that the probability is low for several reasons:

1. As many as 11 P5 teams (Including ND) should have 2 losses or less in any given year
2. The 12th team is the next highest champ outside of the P5.  These are usually outside the top 15, even with less losses.  That means there will be more teams will less loses available for those 6 spots.
3. With the expansion to 16 there will be more B1G and SEC teams with 2 losses or less, making the best 3 loss team potentially the 4th option within that conference.  This may be the single biggest reason why there are less 3 loss B1G/SEC teams - they can get 3 in with two-losses (or less!)
4. With B12 expansion to 12 (or 14 for the ACC) there is a higher chance for more 2 loss or less teams being viable contenders.

With 11.38 possible 0-2 loss teams in the P5 per year it is extremely probable that you get this result, yearly:

• B1G = 3 total, Champ + two 2 loss or better
• SEC = 3 total, Champ + two 2 loss or better
• ACC = 2 total, Champ + one 2 loss or better
• B12 = 2 total, Champ + one 2 loss or better
• PAC = 1, Champ
• Non-P5 = 1, Champ

The B1G and SEC should have 2.25 teams, each, per year who have 3 losses.  Those teams need to have a good enough record against their own conference (e.g. wins come against the best teams, not the worst) to beat out 2 spots.   That's it, two available spots, that extra ACC/B12 team.  

Of course, it could be a year like last year where there was a 3 loss team in the top ten and there were a lot more losses to go around to everyone - that's when reality kicks probability in the balls.

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

I feel like 10-2 in the SEC gets you in the CFP every year. It’s a little more dicey in the Big Ten. Iowa could get another once in blue moon schedule and avoid tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, lose to USC and UCLA. They could probably still get in, but it’d very dicey and likely depend on a traditionally weak OOS schedule. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

28 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I feel like 10-2 in the SEC gets you in the CFP every year. It’s a little more dicey in the Big Ten. Iowa could get another once in blue moon schedule and avoid tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, lose to USC and UCLA. They could probably still get in, but it’d very dicey and likely depend on a traditionally weak OOS schedule. 

Yeah I'd imagine what you see most, regardless of if the B1G has 5 two loss teams:

• ACC/B12 - the champ gets the bye, if the loser of the CCG is good, they get a wild card
• B1G/SEC - Champ gets the bye, loser is wild card (so the CCG means something), and best team not in the CCG gets in.

 

[Trojan Man 429]

44 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I feel like 10-2 in the SEC gets you in the CFP every year. It’s a little more dicey in the Big Ten. Iowa could get another once in blue moon schedule and avoid tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, lose to USC and UCLA. They could probably still get in, but it’d very dicey and likely depend on a traditionally weak OOS schedule. 

Those lucky conference schedules the West teams relied on will be a thing of the past after the B1G drops divisions in 2024.  The other 12 teams will play 2-3 out of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC yearly and those 4 will play 2 of the other 3 most years.  They will all play 2 of the other 3 every year if Penn State/USC happens yearly.  Ohio State/Michigan will be protected.  Penn State/USC as another permanent game matches up the B1G's other top dogs annually and keeps SOS pretty even among all 4 of them season to season.  Years 1-2 you'd have Ohio State/Penn State and USC/Michigan, then years 3-4 you rotate it to Ohio State/USC and Michigan/Penn State.  They all play the same number of games against each other so nobody feels like they're getting screwed, especially if the conference sets it up so all of them get 1 home and 1 away.  The networks are happy they get 4 guaranteed games per year between the bellcows and the participants in the B1G CCG earned it instead of getting a welfare bid after going 8-4.

Also, the B1G was unusually top heavy last year.  That won't always be the case.  More often than not teams like Michigan State, Iowa and Wisconsin will form a quality second tier with ascents to the top tier every once in awhile.  Nebraska and UCLA could reach that level too.  I'd also look for teams to ask their boosters to start redirecting money to NIL after the new media deal checks start rolling in so they can sign better players.

In the 12 team playoff I expect the B1G and SEC to each get 2 at large bids most years.  Maybe once every 3-4 years one of them will get a third at large bid and once every 5 years one of those leagues will cannibalize itself enough to only get 1 at large bid.  Of the other conferences I think the Big 12 will get an at large bid most years.  If the Pac 12 loses anyone to the Big 12 they're never getting an at large bid.  If they keep all their remaining members it's possible in years Oregon, Washington and Utah are all doing well but it would be rare due to the crabs in a bucket nature of Pac 12 conference play.  The ACC will get an at large bid once every few years though it would help a lot if both Clemson and Florida State were good at the same time, Miami got their shit together and somebody else like Pitt or North Carolina could be consistently good.  Pull that off and I think they'd get an at large most years.

[TKthunder2 4985]

I’m 100% for a SEC/ACC football challenge.

9 conference games
1 ACC challenge game
1 other P5 OOC game (B1G/B12/PAC)
1 guaranteed home game from the G5

That gets Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, and Georgia 6 home/5 away/1 neutral site and everyone else 7 one year and 6 the next.

For the challenge, you lock in UF/FSU, UGA/GT, SC/Clem, UK/UL as permanent rivalries and then rotate the other 12.

Obviously with the numbers, this would be unbalanced but rather than not including Vandy each year I could see ND being included in this agreement (especially if it’s mid season and not in the first 3 weeks).

ND has recently played Texas, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma and has games against aggy, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida on their future schedules. This would give ND its 9th predictable game: USC, Stanford, Navy, 5x ACC, 1x SEC…so they’d only need 3 more games basically just like every other school. This would also get ESPN 3 guaranteed Irish games each year and give ND more sure footing as an independent to hopefully keep them from jumping to the B1G.

For #16 they could again just drop one SEC team but I’d hope they might ‘adopt’ Tulane for the challenge (former SEC member and ESPN owns the AAC’s rights too) to the ACC’s side to even out the numbers (if it had to be a true independent they could pull in UConn but Tulane has more interest due to their history and better football that makes them more attractive).

Mock schedule:

Bama/ND*
Texas/UNC
Oklahoma/Miami
LSU/NCSU
aggy/VA Tech
Tenn/UVA
Auburn/Pitt
Arkansas/Syracuse
Ole Miss/Tulane*
Mizzou/WF
MSU/BC
Vandy/Duke

[bullet 1596]

10 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Bullet- you're one of the sharpest minds in the realignment world.  Don't you find it odd that McMurphy and Dodds (the only reporters who have pushed the PNW to the BIG idea) had zero intel when the BIG added Corn, RU, MD, USC and UCLA, but a month after the LA schools joined, they had weekly updates on UW and UO's talks with the BIG ?

I've thought from the beginning they've been used as pawns by the B12/networks to destabilize the Four Corners by constantly reminding them that UW/UO are dying to join the BIG.

It's also possible that some info has come from Eugene, as they want their recruits to believe they're joining the BIG very soon.

Meanwhile, the people who are the most tied into the BIG (Auerbach, Rittenberg, Thamel) have all said the same 3 things for the last 10 months, and Auerbach just reiterated some of it last week:

1. OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, WI are not taking pay cuts and don't want to add trips to the PNW to their schedules.

2. The lower-mid tier BIG schools (IU, PU, IL, Rutgers, etc) don't want to take additional Ls while also taking less money, and they don't want their games shifted onto streaming because there are too many conference games for their broadcast partners to handle.

3. ND has an open invitation, and there are ACC schools that the BIG covets, but there is no support for PNW expansion.  

 

Add to that the fact that Thamel and the LAT reported that USC lobbied from day 1 against letting in other West Coast schools.  I've heard that UCLA has been a strong "No" also.  The LA schools obviously don't run the BIG, but they just interviewed and voted on the new commissioner, so they definitely have a voice.

Finally, we've seen BIG West schools ADs and coaches talk about getting players out of CA.  Why would they want to add West coast competitors ?

I'll ask the question I've asked before itt- exactly which 12 schools in the BIG are going to vote to add the PNW schools before they see what they can accomplish raiding the ACC ?

The PNW schools aren't going SEC.  If the BIG strikes out with the ACC, they can always add schools at that time if they feel like the need.  

But that's 10-12 years away.

 

 

 

Zeros have a small tv market and no recruiting grounds, but are dirty recruiters and very aggressive in NIL. 

All downside/no upside for existing BIG schools- especially mid-tier and lower tiers programs like IA, MN, PU.

Its pretty clear McMurphy is getting his info from inside the Big 10.

Its Kliavcoff and Canzano, the two most ridiculous sources on the planet, who keep saying this is all coming from the Big 12.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

14 minutes ago, bullet said:

Its pretty clear McMurphy is getting his info from inside the Big 10.

Its Kliavcoff and Canzano, the two most ridiculous sources on the planet, who keep saying this is all coming from the Big 12.

[USC Traveler 488]

8 hours ago, bullet said:

Its pretty clear McMurphy is getting his info from inside the Big 10.

Its Kliavcoff and Canzano, the two most ridiculous sources on the planet, who keep saying this is all coming from the Big 12.

What's clear about it ?

The reporters who are the most connected to the BIG have been saying the exact opposite.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Just more bad press for the ol' Pac...

 

[TKthunder2 4985]

9 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Just more bad press for the ol' Pac...

 

Honestly might be addition by subtraction. While the Big 12 officials are clearly the worst, the PAC12 does keep it interesting with their unique brand of ineptitude.

[bullet 1596]

11 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

What's clear about it ?

The reporters who are the most connected to the BIG have been saying the exact opposite.

If you read McMurphy's tweets and articles.  In any event, he says he's verified this stuff with several sources.  Big 12 people are not sources for what the Big 10 is doing.

Warren appeared to be one of his sources, but he is still saying the same thing after Warren decided to leave.  And it was pretty easy to verify that UW and Oregon met in Chicago with Big 10 officials.

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Honestly might be addition by subtraction. While the Big 12 officials are clearly the worst, the PAC12 does keep it interesting with their unique brand of ineptitude.

No.  Pac 12 tops them all.  Bad refs is one thing the Pac clearly leads all other conferences in.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

10 minutes ago, bullet said:

No.  Pac 12 tops them all.  Bad refs is one thing the Pac clearly leads all other conferences in.

Apparently now the Big Ten does

[Trojan Man 429]

2 hours ago, Jabberwocky said:

Just more bad press for the ol' Pac...

 

That's fucking gross.  Leaving those cocksuckers behind was one of the best parts of joining the B1G.  Guess I'll cope by telling myself they will be properly trained and held accountable in the B1G, two foreign concepts in the Pac 12 officiating handbook.

[TKthunder2 4985]

Good read on the ACC situation.

https://abc11.com/sports/inside-the-big-money-battle-that-could-decide-the-accs-future/13188355/
 

[Texas Wahoo 3390]

18 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Good read on the ACC situation.

https://abc11.com/sports/inside-the-big-money-battle-that-could-decide-the-accs-future/13188355/
 

Quote

During conversations about revising the revenue distribution plan, the league has run the numbers on a number of potential options, according to multiple sources involved in the talks, most of which involve a complicated formula that includes items like total scholarships offered, brand power, academic success and on-field success.

This may be the best bet to get something changed, as teams with more sports and academic success may be willing to go along with the brand-name football teams.  However, I agree with the sentiment below - any change is going to be small and will not make FSU or anyone else enough money to stick around in 13 years.  If I'm Boston College or Wake Forest, I'm sticking to my guns and assuming those schools are out as soon as they get an offer to leave no matter how much money the ACC funnels to them.

Quote

"Philosophically, I believe that what's good for one should be good for everyone," one athletic director said. "Otherwise, you get a lot of disparity. The big thing is, if you're making an extra $2 million because you went to the College Football Playoff, if you get asked to be in another league, like UCLA and USC did, it doesn't matter. That's not going to change your decision. They're gone. So it's not preventing what people are kind of concerned about, which is, if there was continued super expansion, people are gone.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

On 4/22/2023 at 6:20 PM, TKthunder2 said:

Jon Wilner blog article

https://sports360az.com/2023/04/hotline-mailbag-worst-case-scenario-for-the-pac-12-outlook-for-oregon-and-uw-valuation-rumors-expansion-candidates-and-more/

 

Wilner has really lost it.  This is comedy gold.

Quote

 

the Ducks and Huskies are far better off remaining in a Pac-12 that doesn’t include USC than they would be in an 18- or 20-team Big Ten, where they would fight Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC for the automatic bid or handful of at-large slots.

Again, we could be in the minority with that view. But the remainder of the 2020s is all about brand building for the next stage in college football’s evolution, when the Power Five becomes the Power Three or Power Four and economic forces (i.e., players as employees) create a clear bifurcation into the haves and have-nots.

The best way to join the haves in the 2030s is CFP participation in the 2020s.

 

Wilner thinks the best way for UW/UO to get into the P2 is to pass on any P2 invitation they receive now, in order to have playoff success to build up their resume to enable them to....................join the P2 in the 2030's.

😂😂😂

[gatormarc 911]

6 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Wilner thinks the best way for UW/UO to get into the P2 is to pass on any P2 invitation they receive now, in order to have playoff success to build up their resume to enable them to....................join the P2 in the 2030's.

I think he's suggesting that they could be better able to compete once they join the B10 if they wait.

Yes, there are a ton of flaws with that thought process but there is a distinction.

Edited April 27, 2023 by gatormarc

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

32 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

I think he's suggesting that they could be better able to compete once they join the B10 if they wait.

Yes, there are a ton of flaws with that thought process but there is a distinction.

Staying in PAC 10 for 6 more years will only hinder your recruiting, especially without USC there. I think in the 2023 cycle USC and Oregon were the only programs in the entire conference to land a 5 star. 

As a new potential TV deal with majority streaming seems to be their best move for those 6 years, one could draw the conclusion that the talent going to the west will dwindle. Majority of football talent in the US resides in Midwest/Southeast. That is why it would be imperative for Washington/Oregon to move to the Midwest/Southeast because not doing so further isolates them to west coast talent and lack of visibility with regards to TV.

Edited April 27, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Texas Wahoo 3390]

18 minutes ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

Staying in PAC 10 for 6 more years will only hinder your recruiting, especially without USC there. I think in the 2023 cycle USC and Oregon were the only programs in the entire conference to land a 5 star. 

As a new potential TV deal with majority streaming seems to be their best move for those 6 years, one could draw the conclusion that the talent going to the west will dwindle. Majority of football talent in the US resides in Midwest/Southeast. That is why it would be imperative for Washington/Oregon to move to the Midwest/Southeast because not doing so further isolates them to west coast talent and lack of visibility with regards to TV.

Colorado and UCLA also landed 5 stars.  Either way, I'm not sure that is saying a ton, because Ohio State was the only team in the entire Big Ten to land a five star and TX/OU were the only teams in the entire Big 12 to land five stars (and only FSU, Clemson, and Miami in the ACC).  Having four schools land five stars (two of which are presumably staying) is actually quite good compared to the non-SEC conferences.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

14 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Colorado and UCLA also landed 5 stars.  Either way, I'm not sure that is saying a ton, because Ohio State was the only team in the entire Big Ten to land a five star and TX/OU were the only teams in the entire Big 12 to land five stars (and only FSU, Clemson, and Miami in the ACC).  Having four schools land five stars (two of which are presumably staying) is actually quite good compared to the non-SEC conferences.

I forgot about McClain to Colorado with all the other news about them out there currently. 

Regardless, they're losing USC and UCLA. I think they're 100% isolating themselves to talent although Oregon and maybe even potentially Colorado have a national appeal. We will see how long that last for Colorado. 

My point was that the most elite talent is MW/SE. The concentration of talent that will be going to BIG/SEC moving forward will hinder them greatly. I think Oregon is the only one in reality that can compete nationally due to their NIL. Colorado will rely on Deion hype as I don't think they have the cash for the huge NIL impact that Deion will try to make them appear to have. 

USC/UCLA and Texas/Oklahoma are opening themselves up to the most talent rich areas in the landscape by their move. And as we continue with this landscape of college football realignment is that the majority of talent will funnel itself to SEC/BIG going forward as those are the two premier conferences in CFB. 

 

While PAC has lost USC/UCLA in their footprint they still have Cal/Stanford in California recruiting ground but as we saw with the Aggies leaving for the SEC they opened the door for BIG teams to move into that area. Conversely the Big 12 has opened it's recruiting ground with Ohio(Cincy) and Florida(UCF). 

 

 

 

 

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football-rankings/college-football-recruiting-2023-signing-day-five-star-by-conference

Using 2023 numbers for 5 stars it's like this(I'm including Texas/OU, USC/UCLA with their new conference because it will be a moving forward thing:

SEC - 28

BIG - 4 

ACC - 4 

PAC - 2

 

As you can see the stranglehold the SEC has on the elite talent is insane. That is a big reason why I'm glad we decided to go there. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Texas Wahoo 3390]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

I forgot about McClain to Colorado with all the other news about them out there currently. 

Regardless, they're losing USC and UCLA. I think they're 100% isolating themselves to talent although Oregon and maybe even potentially Colorado have a national appeal. We will see how long that last for Colorado. 

My point was that the most elite talent is MW/SE. The concentration of talent that will be going to BIG/SEC moving forward will hinder them greatly. I think Oregon is the only one in reality that can compete nationally due to their NIL. Colorado will rely on Deion hype as I don't think they have the cash for the huge NIL impact that Deion will try to make them appear to have. 

USC/UCLA and Texas/Oklahoma are opening themselves up to the most talent rich areas in the landscape by their move. And as we continue with this landscape of college football realignment is that the majority of talent will funnel itself to SEC/BIG going forward as those are the two premier conferences in CFB. 

I was just noting that you are including the midwest in the talent rich areas, but it's really just the south, including Texas, Arizona, and CA.  So far this year, Big Ten country (not including CA) has only one five star, an Indiana player committed to tOSU.  Arizona has two.  Last year was a bit better with three (Detroit - UCLA, Iowa - Alabama, and PA - PSU).  The midwest has some top athletes, but it's not really more than the west.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

3 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I was just noting that you are including the midwest in the talent rich areas, but it's really just the south, including Texas, Arizona, and CA.  So far this year, Big Ten country (not including CA) has only one five star, an Indiana player committed to tOSU.  Arizona has two.  Last year was a bit better with three (Detroit - UCLA, Iowa - Alabama, and PA - PSU).  The midwest has some top athletes, but it's not really more than the west.

The west is simply just California. 

 

 

USC/UCLA opening the door for BIG recruiting into California will effect the west coast ability to retain California talent IMO.

Edited April 27, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[statsman 5453]

1 hour ago, gatormarc said:

I think he's suggesting that they could be better able to compete once they join the B10 if they wait.

Yes, there are a ton of flaws with that thought process but there is a distinction.

Yes, but, fellow Texas fans- do you see a flaw in the reasoning of “let’s plan to build our brand by making the CFP several times in the next decade, in this relatively weak conference”?

Nobody knows better than us that it’s easier said than done. 

[statsman 5453]

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

The west is simply just California. 

 

 

USC/UCLA opening the door for BIG recruiting into California will effect the west coast ability to retain California talent IMO.

Yep. There are four talent rich regions* in this nation- the south, Texas, California and the Ohio valley. 
 

*I don’t know how to rate or quantify the pacific islands. I know there is talent there, but I don’t know how much. 

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

9 minutes ago, statsman said:

Yep. There are four talent rich regions* in this nation- the south, Texas, California and the Ohio valley. 
 

*I don’t know how to rate or quantify the pacific islands. I know there is talent there, but I don’t know how much. 

I think there are about 6-7 states/regions

 

1 - Texas

2 - Florida

3 - California

4- Southeast

5 - Georgia( slowly catching up to California in terms of putting out talent) - This state definitely deserves it's own category just by the numbers I shared earlier in this thread.

6 - Midwest(Ohio, Michigan, Rust Belt, etc)

7 - New England Area(Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, etc)

 

I don't think I'd include Pacific islanders as they're just not enough of them.

 

I wouldn't consider the pacific northwest of the US a recruiting hotbed. Nor would i Include states like Montana, Utah, Idaho, NM, or Colorado. Who are kind of in no mans land between the midwest and west coast.

Edited April 27, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Hurtlocker 2212]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Good read on the ACC situation.

https://abc11.com/sports/inside-the-big-money-battle-that-could-decide-the-accs-future/13188355/
 

Most damning quote in that article: "Consultants tell us FSU is paid 7%, but worth 15% of the ACC's contract"

• ACC's contract  = $240m/year
• FSU's estimated value per year = $33.6m

No offense to our favorite Nole, but it seems we've been overestimating the brand power of FSU.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Yes, but, fellow Texas fans- do you see a flaw in the reasoning of “let’s plan to build our brand by making the CFP several times in the next decade, in this relatively weak conference”?

Nobody knows better than us that it’s easier said than done. 

Hahaha, yeah that decision could end up elevating Utah and Colorado or something.    Oregon and Washington need to make their best long term deal now, and live with it.   They're going to be T1 in a Pac10, but little to no exposure.   T1 in the B12 with a lot more exposure and T2 in the Big Ten with a lot more money, but a lot less clout.   

That's basically it.

[Vertigo 20276]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

I think there are about 6-7 states/regions

 

1 - Texas

2 - Florida

3 - California

4- Southeast

5 - Georgia( slowly catching up to California in terms of putting out talent) - This state definitely deserves it's own category just by the numbers I shared earlier in this thread.

6 - Midwest(Ohio, Michigan, Rust Belt, etc)

7 - New England Area(Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, etc)

 

I don't think I'd include Pacific islanders as they're just not enough of them.

 

I wouldn't consider the pacific northwest of the US a recruiting hotbed. Nor would i Include states like Montana, Utah, Idaho, NM, or Colorado. Who are kind of in no mans land between the midwest and west coast.

If you strictly look at it by draft picks over the last 10 years, the order is:

Florida - 316

Texas - 284

California - 253

Georgia - 208

Ohio - 112

There is a precipitous drop off after Georgia, and another precipitous drop after Ohio. That means that the SEC has a stranglehold on 3 of the top 4 talent producing states, plus Louisiana which produces the highest number of NFL players per capita to go along with the other SEC states. The bigger piece behind the draft numbers is that California produces almost zero elite OLine and DLine talent. Therefore, the SEC has an insurmountable advantage in the trenches with only tOSU and Michigan being able to assemble enough talent nationally to compete, which is why they beat the fuck out of everyone else in the CFP. 

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

2 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

If you strictly look at it by draft picks over the last 10 years, the order is:

Florida - 316

Texas - 284

California - 253

Georgia - 208

Ohio - 112

There is a precipitous drop off after Georgia, and another precipitous drop after Ohio. That means that the SEC has a stranglehold on 3 of the top 4 talent producing states, plus Louisiana which produces the highest number of NFL players per capita to go along with the other SEC states. The bigger piece behind the draft numbers is that California produces almost zero elite OLine and DLine talent. Therefore, the SEC has an insurmountable advantage in the trenches with only tOSU and Michigan being able to assemble enough talent nationally to compete, which is why they beat the fuck out of everyone else in the CFP. 

Yup, exactly. BIG adding California to their profile will only help them, same with the Big 12 adding Florida in with already having Texas. Conversely USC/UCLA will be adding midwest/rust belt more into theirs.  Remaining PAC teams are pretty much isolated.