Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away

The Tower

By The Tower
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Sandbagging Steve,

How many teams will be left when the dust settles in a few years? I think there's a way for all the teams to still have some involvement. I will explain that at the end of this list. Here's my list of the top 32 programs and a list if it goes to 48. There's some debate if it goes to 48, but not much debate if it stops at 32. I guess one could debate Arizona State, but that's about it. The top 32 at least come close to carrying their own weight. Everyone below that line is losing money for t

This is great content for free.

Recommended by immamac

  • Hook 'Em

6 reactions

Go to this post
  • Replies 36.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bullet

    1507

  • Hurtlocker

    1322

  • Al_4_ISU

    1079

  • BurntOrange&White

    976

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos
Hiphopopotamos
MAUFRAIS
MAUFRAIS

Aggy should abstain so the vote is 13-0 and then we can then brand it on their dog.

jofus
jofus

Posted Images

Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2212

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

ALL OF THIS.

Fuck em both. This talk of them joining this P5 conference or that P5 conference is wishful bullshit. Stanford belongs in a P5 conference as much as the University of Chicago, who hasn't had a football program since... i forget when and I'm not looking it up, because i don't care about them, either. There are 10 UCs, every last one is a top 100 school, and only 2 have football teams; the better one of the two is mediocre at best, and joining the B1G.

not so fast!

Chicago College Sports Teams

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laxtonto

Laxtonto 12080

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

It looks like SMU is willing to play for free. 

GIF by Teachers on TV Land
 

Funny enough if this has been the case for over a year and nobody said yes (so both the B12 and P12 said no already) why would they think the ACC will agree now?
 

Essentially ESPN and Fox has said they don’t really provide any value for the rest of the conference if they were going in at $0  and now the idea is that ESPN will give the ACC a bump if they include SMU….

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sandbagging Steve

Sandbagging Steve 982

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, John80 said:

It's my understanding that Washington and Oregon will eventually get a full share and they aren't worth a full share so how is that a good decision? The Big Ten and SEC has prospered because they are in areas with strong fan interest and the Big Ten is adding schools in areas that have little to no interest in college sports and I don't know how that will work out in the long term.

Washington and Oregon probably will be a full share by the next contract. They've been playing a lot of bad teams with smaller fan bases on a horrible media contract. Once those two programs play football on broadcast TV against big market teams in close games, their viewership numbers increase. B1G needs competitive teams that land 4-star recruits with speed to change the perception of the league.

Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA force other members of the B1G to eventually change to modern schemes, and both teams have decent chances of adding another playoff spot to the B1G. All very big selling points. 

The same can be said for FSU. 

No top 25 programs are a long-term loss for any conference.

Fanatics on the internet are falling for every piece of leverage/propaganda the media feeds them from sources with an agenda.

B1G started expanding years ago because they're not competitive, lacked recruiting territory, and get most of the large viewership from within their region. They are well aware of the fact one day Farmer Joe's grandson from Illinois may very well not be interested in watching a 40-10 beatdown with between-the-tackles run plays on 1st and 2nd downs and passes on 3rd.  They needed an exciting brand with more competitive games to still be around in 100 years. They're making the correct moves for them.

When Colorado and ASU/Arizona turn their programs around, the B1G will add them and have a coast-to-coast conference with contiguous state borders. But they'll add other teams before those two join the league.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullet

bullet 1596

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

GIF by Teachers on TV Land
 

Funny enough if this has been the case for over a year and nobody said yes (so both the B12 and P12 said no already) why would they think the ACC will agree now?
 

Essentially ESPN and Fox has said they don’t really provide any value for the rest of the conference if they were going in at $0  and now the idea is that ESPN will give the ACC a bump if they include SMU….

Maybe Craig knows a powerful ESPN exec who had a run-in with hookers?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2212

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Scheduling would be difficult 

IMG_8849.jpeg

It will get there eventually.   Not just because the other sports suffer, but also because once you do this the media contracts get stupid big.     It sounds strange to say, but conferences are the biggest limiter on rights fees at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frieda’s Boss

Frieda’s Boss 181

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

ALL OF THIS.

Fuck em both. This talk of them joining this P5 conference or that P5 conference is wishful bullshit. Stanford belongs in a P5 conference as much as the University of Chicago, who hasn't had a football program since... i forget when and I'm not looking it up, because i don't care about them, either. There are 10 UCs, every last one is a top 100 school, and only 2 have football teams; the better one of the two is mediocre at best, and joining the B1G.

You think the UC Davis Aggies are just playing intramurals brutha?!?!

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
billfromlaketravis

billfromlaketravis 11460

Posted
Posted

I listened to quite a few pods the last couple days. Immense pity for Stanford. Some for Cal, basically : “they should get credit for trying again.” Nobody gives a shit about Oregon State and Wazzou. 
 

The Stanford sentiment is just bizarre. Podcasters constantly cited how good Stanford was under Harbaugh. Looks it up, he coached his last game at Stanford in 2010. 
 

Let’s say the Band is on the Field game never happened. Would anyone with a national platform give a shit about Stanford and Cal Football? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upgrayedd

Upgrayedd 5810

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

The BIG had a fundamental problem- not enough programs that can win a national title in any given year vs what the SEC has.  

Every program cycles up and down, but the SEC has enough top programs that the conference is always in the hunt.

Up till now, it was Bama, UGA, LSU, UF, Auburn.  At least one of those programs is always a legit title threat and it's usually 2 or even 3.

Next year, UT and OU are joining, so the SEC-BIG imbalance gets even worse.  That's seven programs capable of winning a national title.

BIG has OSU, but they were the only real title threat for a long time.  They've won 2 titles in 20 years.  But OSU can't do it alone.

UM just woke up from a 20 year slumber, so that helps, but PSU doesn't seem to be producing any legit title teams.

//

I don't think the BIG had any choice but to go after any program that has a legit shot (even if it's a longshot) to win a National Title.

When USC isn't self-sanctioning with idiotic AD and HC hires, USC is legitimately capable of winning it all, with 2 titles in the last 20 years.

UO has played in two title games in the last 15 years, and UW has made the playoff.  

Does it match the SEC at the top ?  No.  But it's a lot better lineup than before, as there are now at least a handful of programs capable of winning it all, even if for some of them it would be a once-in-a-blue-moon type of thing.  

If the BIG could actually add FSU and Clemson, that would be a huge help.

There was a ton of existing deadweight that the BIG can't do anything about, so that is what it is, but at least now the ratio of quality vs quantity is a lot better than it was before.

 

Lulz.  Looking forward to the at Rutgers loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MisterP

MisterP 127

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Why in the flying fuck would anyone take SMU?  They're not good at anything and they barely move the needle even in the DFW market.

Technically, they won the women's equestrian championship this year....

I have some connected SMU friends. They actually have put together quite an NIL system together. IF they could get into the ACC they would be able to start to pull in talent imo. They already have pulled in some good talent since NIL via the portal. Dallas TV market in theory. Texas recruiting to a degree. Everyone wants access to Texas for all of the reasons listed. SMU had success in the past. I dont care where they go but there are definitely SOME reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2212

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think I saw yesterday maybe on here or elsewhere that adding teams could trigger a renegotiation clause?

They could do that with UConn though.    Only thing I can think this may give them is more premium subs for ACCN.   But even then its not a huge amount.  Maybe $50-60m more out of DFW and the Bay Area.

If ESPN is giving them full in, maybe that's enough to bribe FSU and Clemson.   If ESPN is using this bump to pay for them though, its a wash.

Edited by Hurtlocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evil Bill Obrien

Evil Bill Obrien 3277

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, statsman said:

Why wouldn’t this comment also apply to UH?

I mean it kinda does, but at least UH has been good in Basketball as of late, has been consistently decent in Football, and probably moves the proverbial sports needle a little bit more in Houston than SMU does in DFW. But like in a lot of things in life its better to be lucky than to be good and UH found themselves a desperate "power" conference and got themselves a golden ticket out of the AAC/G5 Purgatory and looking like SMU will be there forever if no one will take them even at $0 payout for years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CustersDoctor

CustersDoctor 584

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

I can’t keep up. 

With all the responses since the PACX blew up on Friday, combined with the fact I can only surly when my boss isn't looking, it took my all week to get to the of this thread. It was expanding faster that I could observe it, kinda like the universe.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14590

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, statsman said:

Why wouldn’t this comment also apply to UH?

Not to take up for Cougar High but they're good in both football and basketball and have an enrollment of roughly 40K in a major market.  SMU is more on par with TCU but TCU has a history of being good in the key sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jasper_Jester

Jasper_Jester 356

Posted
Posted

Cal and Stanford being football only members in the ACC could help them. They should have the luxury of being able to build a structure that allows them to join a more local conference for the Olympic sports.

I guess I'm not sure how the ACC is made better by that deal. But, I don't see how the Big 12 benefitted at all from adding Arizona et.al. so maybe I'm missing the master strategy of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redswingline

redswingline 1057

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Not to take up for Cougar High but they're good in both football and basketball and have an enrollment of roughly 40K in a major market.  SMU is more on par with TCU but TCU has a history of being good in the key sports.

An NFL market that doesn't care about UH football

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hook me

hook me 2092

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Underrated...let's check the math:

Stanford, Cal and SMU come in to give them 18, pay them all $15m.   $45m gets split between FSU/Clemson, plus a bigger share of the post season...that could be a $25-35m bump for each, getting them to $55-65m.   

But why would ESPN ever agree to Stanford, Cal, & SMU getting a full share to begin with? Even half a share seems too generous for Cal & SMU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zhorn96

Zhorn96 1773

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, hook me said:

But why would ESPN ever agree to Stanford, Cal, & SMU getting a full share to begin with? Even half a share seems too generous for Cal & SMU. 

Why is Stanford more valuable than Cal?  Worse attendance, smaller or similar ratings on TV, etc.  They're the same.  And both are more valuable than SMU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...