Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I would love to get rid of FCS games, but I believe our BOR, which governs all 3 of Iowa's public universities (ISU, Iowa, and Northern Iowa) puts a ton of pressure on ISU and Iowa to make sure Northern Iowa plays at least one of them (some years both of them) on annual basis.  Mostly to help subsidize UNI's athletic department with the buy game.

My guess is Campbell and Ferentz would love to quit playing the Panthers.  Being as they always play us tough (actually win about 30% of the time lately), and my wife/in-laws are huge UNI fans/alumni, I would personally be fine with never playing them again in anything.

If they're going to make Iowa and Iowa State just send them a million for a game, why not just give them $2m more in the budget and call it a day?

[Al_4_ISU 12,457]

9 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

If they're going to make Iowa and Iowa State just send them a million for a game, why not just give them $2m more in the budget and call it a day?

I don't want to drag to CR into this, but look at who runs the state government and ask yourself if they're going to start giving educational institutions more money.

A lot of people in this state want these schools to play each other as much as possible.  Until very recently Iowa and Iowa State would travel to Northern Iowa and Drake for basketball.  Hell, Iowa and Iowa State didn't want to play each other in football, until the legislature forced them to in 1977.  Then Iowa tried to insist they shouldn't have to go to Ames, and of course ISU said they wouldn't travel to Iowa City unless there was a return trip to Ames.

There's a lengthy history of political insistence on these institutions competing against each, and I do think the majority of Iowans prefer this arrangement.  I love it in theory, but hate it in practice.  

[Uncle Nate 2,097]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Vandy?

This is the correct answer.

The thought that Tulane would have become the power that LSU became ignores the fact that Tulane is a highly-selective private school with an enrollment less than 15,000.  USC and Notre Dame, and for a short time relatively speaking Miami, are the only schools that have Tulane's selectivity and became major football powers (I don't count Stanford because they only had a brief moment a time or two).  But USC is in LA, Miami I'm certain bought their success (and it's Miami), and Notre Dame has the history and the Papists.  Tulane, if they had stayed in the SEC, wouldn't have had any of that.

LSU, however, is the flagship university for the state and is not highly selective.  If Tulane had stayed in SEC, LSU would still have been the power they were,  the SEC would just have a 2nd Vandy to beat up on.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Uncle Nate

[statsman 5,457]

There is one more private school with (renewed) football aspirations. 
 
SMU

They have known for years how to get good- pay layers. They resigned themselves to a world where they had to choose between “a good academic rep and irrelevant at football” and “good at football and an academic pariah”

No longer. They actually have a bunch of NiL money ready to go. The Pony Express can ride again!

One problem- the best recruits want more than just money. They want to play in a conference that prepares and showcases them for the NFL. 
 
So, SMU knows they need to get in a P5 league to really parlay their NIL funding into an elite team. They’re going to try to leverage Texas access into an ACC membership (because the Texas schools in the B12 don’t want to share exposure and recruits with them. 

[PilotsError 2,287]

2 hours ago, Longboard Horn said:

SMU should worry about winning the AAC first before jumping ship to another conference. With UCF, Cincy and Houston out of the way, Tulane is one of the very few teams that stand in the way. 

A Texas fan telling another school to win their conference lol. 
 

 

[Royale with cheese 1,466]

15 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

The three sources cited in the article are Klownkoff, Klownkoff's law school buddy who worked on the media deal, and Clownzano.

I'm surprised the LAT remembered to take Klownkoff's email header off this piece before they published it.

I'm not surprised at a shit article in the LAT, though.  The LAT is trash, and has been for years.

I resemble that remark!

['stache 21,802]

I don't think the FCS games are going anywhere. Those schools need the revenue and a bunch of those kids were on the fringe of making a big program and those games might be their only chance to play at the bigger stadiums with big crowds. The talent disparity is such that they will almost never win, but it's not like their getting injured out there, so the physical disparities are fine. And for schools like UNI, it's their chance to play their larger state counterparts. Even if there was a serious movement to preclude those games, SEC for sure isn't going to get rid of the mid-November cupcake, it's turdition. 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I'm with statsman on this one, FCS games can't go away fast enough.   They should be Spring games, or like post camp, pre-season, warmups or something.   

I get that some places have another state FCS state school that gets a boost, but they shouldn't count towards W/L or even be a part of the season.   Its like if the Cowboys had an XFL game on the schedule.   

 

I think that if there is a rule change so that all nonconference games must either be on a neutral field or home-and-home arrangements, most P5 schools would start only scheduling other P5 schools. It's probably the simplest, most fair solution.

['stache 21,802]

I know it used to be that a win over an FCS school didn't count towards 6 wins for bowl eligibility, but with all the bowls multiplying, we have 5-7 teams making bowls now, so the rule went away, and probably wouldn't matter anyway. 

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

Just now, 'stache said:

I know it used to be that a win over an FCS school didn't count towards 6 wins for bowl eligibility, but with all the bowls multiplying, we have 5-7 teams making bowls now, so the rule went away, and probably wouldn't matter anyway. 

TBH 6-6 teams shouldn't be making bowl games. They need to make it where you have 7 wins. Shit is so watered down

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I know it used to be that a win over an FCS school didn't count towards 6 wins for bowl eligibility, but with all the bowls multiplying, we have 5-7 teams making bowls now, so the rule went away, and probably wouldn't matter anyway. 

I think it's always been that you can't count more than 1 FCS win.

['stache 21,802]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

TBH 6-6 teams shouldn't be making bowl games. They need to make it where you have 7 wins. Shit is so watered down

I agree with this, and stop sanctioning new bowls, I get that more football is good, but they lose all meaning when 5-7 teams are making the cut. At least 6 wins goes back to when most schools had 11 game schedules, so it was at least above .500.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

9 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I think it's always been that you can't count more than 1 FCS win.

I'm for you can play however many you like, but they don't count on your record.   

[BachelorTrek 2,967]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Vandy?

Correct, yet another SEC-Doormat like Vandy.  Lulz.

[Zhorn96 1,773]

Roachian update from Wilner.  He might as well put a 4 confidence CB pick in

['stache 21,802]

Two west coast schools in the Atlantic Coast Conference would be peak realignment. Rename it the Whatever Coast Conference or Coasty McCoastface.

[royiv 9,285]

23 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

SMU has more alumni money (for NIL), better academics, and is in the biggest/most recognizable city in the metro. 

Might want to check the numbers on TCU's endowment versus SMU's and the growth of each over the last decade. It tells a different story.

[HookEm 2,467]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

USC and Notre Dame, and for a short time relatively speaking Miami, are the only schools that have Tulane's selectivity and became major football powers (I don't count Stanford because they only had a brief moment a time or two).  But USC is in LA, Miami I'm certain bought their success (and it's Miami), and Notre Dame has the history and the Papists.  Tulane, if they had stayed in the SEC, wouldn't have had any of that.

 

2 hours ago, statsman said:

There is one more private school with (renewed) football aspirations.  SMU

There are other (decent) private schools that have fared well in athletics.  Duke has been a basketball powerhouse for a while.  

TCU played for a football title just last year.

BYU won a football title in the 80s.

Baylor won a title in men's hoops and has been very competitive over the last 16 years (A 12-win season + three 11-win seasons). I still think that they have the potential to be the Baptist Notre Dame if they would ever stop killing and raping people.

[royiv 9,285]

7 minutes ago, HookEm said:

Baylor won a title in men's hoops and has been very competitive over the last 16 years (A 12-win season + three 11-win seasons). I still think that they have the potential to be the Baptist Notre Dame if they would ever stop killing and raping people.

Whoa, now. Don't get ahead of yourself. That stuff is interwoven into the fabric of Baylor athletics. 

[USC Traveler 488]

5 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

Roachian update from Wilner.  He might as well put a 4 confidence CB pick in

Is that the same "momentum" that was "trending" for the PAC staying together the same day that UW, UO, UA, ASU and Utah all left the conference ? 😂

 

Wilner's sources: Klownkoff, Cal admin, Stanford admin

The same sources that told him for 12 months that the PAC had a great tv deal lined up that was going to be better than the B12 and that the conference was going to stay together.🤣

 

[LTbear 4,168]

36 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Two west coast schools in the Atlantic Coast Conference would be peak realignment. Rename it the Whatever Coast Conference or Coasty McCoastface.

From where I sat on the east side of Cal Memorial Stadium you could see where the Bay opened into the Pacific Ocean. This is all crazy town. 

[USC Traveler 488]

44 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Two west coast schools in the Atlantic Coast Conference would be peak realignment. Rename it the Whatever Coast Conference or Coasty McCoastface.

 

How about the Pacific Atlantic Conference ?

They could even abbreviate it to make it sound cool!

[TKthunder2 4,988]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

At large playoff bids will come down to brand, like they always do.

A 1 loss TCU is getting in over a 3 loss Ole Miss.  They aren't getting in over a 3 loss Bama.

Same applies to the Big 10.  If it's Minnesota, Iowa, Purdue, etc with 3 losses, they have almost no chance of getting in over a 1 loss Big 12 non-champ.  3 loss Ohio State and 3 loss Michigan will always get consideration.  It has nothing to do with strength of schedule or quality of wins.

I don’t think a 3 loss over 1 loss will be common.

The argument was a 3 loss non champ SEC/B1G team getting in over a 2 loss non champ B12/ACC. You might be right about Ohio St or Bama doing a double jump, but the argument was when judging by SOS the default (but not always) should consider an SEC/B1G 3 loss team is better than an ACC/B12 2 loss team.

[Sbbruin 21,841]

5 hours ago, gatormarc said:

LSU - 9-3 (losses: Bama, Arkansas, USCw; notable wins: UF, OU, UCLA, Ole Miss)

[Satchel 6,938]

7 hours ago, statsman said:

Seriously? Players. 
 
You’re a Tech fan, right? Tech is doing a good job with NIL. You should be top level in the B12 at $25k year as a floor payment. Texas is at four times that. 

To me, this is the dilemma billionaires find themselves in. They don’t pursue more money because they need it,  They pursue more money because it’s more money. That’s exactly what all of these greedy college programs are doing. At some point piling millions upon top of millions will have diminishing returns I can see schools (much like the NFL had to do) having to impose spending limits on themselves in order to save themselves from themselves.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Satchel

[Sbbruin 21,841]

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,829]

Sounds like Condi brought It's-Its.

[Zhorn96 1,773]

3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Sounds like Condi brought It's-Its.

game changer.  It's-Its are fucking delicious

[Laxtonto 12,080]

So the move to the ACC is becoming a bit more realistic. Sounds like the Pac4 Expanded concept got pushed to the media members and the payout $$ was way lower than they hoped and they still heard they won't get CFP auto status (duh). Better to have 1/2 of the Pac4 get a soft landing than all 4 getting left out, especially if it is the peasant land grants getting fucked..

[Vertigo 20,276]

7 hours ago, gatormarc said:

Unless it's one those scenarios where you're competing with other 3 loss SEC teams. Just a totally ridiculous scenario below. Don't check my math or anything.

Bama - 12-1 SEC Champs (loss to UGA regular season)
Georgia - 12-1 SEC Runner Up (loss to Bama SECCG)
Florida - 9-3 (losses: UGA, UTn, LSU; notable wins: UTx, Miami, FSU, UCF, A&M, Ole Miss)
Texas - 9-3 (losses: UF, UGA, OU; notable wins: UMich, Arky, A&M)
Tennnessee - 9-3 (losses: UGA, Bama, OU; notable wins: UF, Arky)
Oklahoma - 9-3 (losses: Bama, LSU, Ole Miss; notable wins: UTx, UTn, AU)
LSU - 9-3 (losses: Bama, Arkansas, USCw; notable wins: UF, OU, UCLA, Ole Miss)

Why you gotta have Texas losing to Florida? What are you trying to say sir?

[notre dame joe 187]

3 hours ago, royiv said:

Whoa, now. Don't get ahead of yourself. That stuff is interwoven into the fabric of TEXAS.

Before you disagree, try to name one famous battle that took place in Indiana without the wikipedia. 

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

33 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Before you disagree, try to name one famous battle that took place in Indiana without the wikipedia. 

[gatormarc 911]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

Why you gotta have Texas losing to Florida? What are you trying to say sir?

Gators are back, baby!

[TKthunder2 4,988]

3 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

 

Notre Dame to the SEC CONFIRMED!!!

[USC Traveler 488]

20 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

You don’t consolidate this many brands/powers together to continue business as usual, because business as usual had bluebloods in every power conference. With the consolidation of power in the P2 the expectations around just stack ranking by record is going to be wildly outdated.

2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference:

BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25).

SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23).

Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17).

ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21).

PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State).

AAC -- 1 team (No. 24)

ND-- (No. 13)

 

//

Once the ACC is divided up, we could easily be looking at a top 25 of:

BIG -- 10 teams

SEC -- 10 teams

 Big 12 -- 3

PAC/MWC -- 1

AAC -- 1 

 

If this year's rankings are any indication, it's going to be harder than I was originally thinking for the B12 to get two teams in.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,389]

https://apnews.com/article/pac12-stanford-acc-conference-realignment-oregon-washiington-0722c523671cd2e4ac8b42151000bf48

 

Quote

Stanford has not given up on getting an invitation to join the Atlantic Coast Conference as its fellow Pac-4 members in the Pacific Northwest hope to rebuild their plundered league and wait to find out if the Cardinal are in.

Leaders from Stanford, California, Oregon State and Washington State spoke Thursday, and Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years, a person familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press.

 

 

 

[LTbear 4,168]

That just doesn't sound like a Stanford thing to do.

[Zhorn96 1,773]

if a vote happens tomorrow, and there is a 12pm meeting scheduled, Cal/Furd are going to the ACC.  Cal peeps, without saying "its happening", seem optimistic.  Put in a Roach 4 CB for Cal/Furd to the ACC!

 

Ok, maybe a Roach 3 CB

[LTbear 4,168]

19 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

if a vote happens tomorrow, and there is a 12pm meeting scheduled, Cal/Furd are going to the ACC.  Cal peeps, without saying "its happening", seem optimistic.  Put in a Roach 4 CB for Cal/Furd to the ACC!

 

Ok, maybe a Roach 3 CB

Cal peeps I know waver from optimistic to existential dread on a minute by minute basis. 

[TTU13 108]

I’m right across the street from Cal as we speak. Based on vibes, no one knows they field a football team.

[Royale with cheese 1,466]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years

 

You used to be so amused
At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
Go to him now, he calls you, you can’t refuse
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
You’re invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal

 

 

[TKthunder2 4,988]

If Cal and Stanford were smart (what a weird world we live in when I can honestly start a sentence that way) they should have been secretly negotiating with the Big 12 behind under a NDA.

Once Oregon and Washington left, they could have pulled the trigger and leap frogged over ASU/Utah, both schools that clearly don’t want to be in the B12 and schools in duplicate markets/states that are already in (or invited) the conference.

I get that many in here oppose them for political reasons, but two schools in SFO including an every other year ND game (and I assume USC too at some point) would be far more valuable for the conference in the long term.

[CustersDoctor 584]

CALSTAN don't deserve an ACC invite. It makes ZERO economic sense to the current ACC. The travel will be worse than what either the B1G ot the Big12 are facing. It SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

[TKthunder2 4,988]

3 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

CALSTAN don't deserve an ACC invite. It makes ZERO economic sense to the current ACC. The travel will be worse than what either the B1G ot the Big12 are facing. It SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

It does make sense, in a crazy type of way that is our current reality.

For the ACC Cal/Stanford are rumored to be talking about taking $0 from their TV deal. The ACC (fully with ESPN) has a prorata claus for new members. So they can take that free money from ESPN and give it to FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami and keep them temporarily happy and stabilize their drama keeping the conference together. It’s not a great sustainable long term solution, but it’s actually not horrible in the short term.

Cal/Stanford care more about getting into the Big Ten long term but if they join the MWC/AAC they’ll lose (even more) recruits and exposure and be an afterthought. If they double down on athletics and win some in the ACC they think their is a chance the future Big Ten will take them in.

Who knows, maybe the Big 12/ACC figure out some other way to do a membership swap with West Virginia/Cincinnati going to the ACC and Cal/Stanford going the Big12. Sounds unlikely but so did Cal/Stanford joining the ACC a year ago…

[bullet 1,596]

16 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Wonder what Tulane could had been if they never left the SEC?

Vanderbilt

[bullet 1,596]

37 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

If Cal and Stanford were smart (what a weird world we live in when I can honestly start a sentence that way) they should have been secretly negotiating with the Big 12 behind under a NDA.

Once Oregon and Washington left, they could have pulled the trigger and leap frogged over ASU/Utah, both schools that clearly don’t want to be in the B12 and schools in duplicate markets/states that are already in (or invited) the conference.

I get that many in here oppose them for political reasons, but two schools in SFO including an every other year ND game (and I assume USC too at some point) would be far more valuable for the conference in the long term.

Conference politics.  They are toxic. 

[USC Traveler 488]

42 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

If Cal and Stanford were smart...

The problem is they're not smart when it comes to the business of CFB.  They're clueless and arrogant, though, which is a deadly combo.

Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions.  They were the only "No" vote the first time.

Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU and the gang in 2010 b/c of LHN.

They could have brought in the remaining B12 schools and/or BYU in 2021, but look down on those schools and didn't want them in the PAC.

There's a reason they want to play in the ACC and have never talked to the B12.  B12 is better off without them.

//

On top of that, Cal admin has kneecapped their football team for the last 12 years or so, making them completely irrelevant. 

Stanford kept Shaw on way too long, making them mostly irrelevant. 

Neither school has invested in football.   Like the rest of the PAC, they thought they could leech off USC's media value forever via revenue-sharing.

It never occurred to them that USC would actually leave, even though USC had been talking about it for years- sometimes publicly.

Stanford and Cal were huge factors in the PAC failing.  They helped sow the seeds of its destruction and are reaping what they sowed.

[notre dame joe 187]

7 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference:

BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25).

SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23).

Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17).

ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21).

PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State).

AAC -- 1 team (No. 24)

ND-- (No. 13)

 

//

Once the ACC is divided up, we could easily be looking at a top 25 of:

BIG -- 10 teams

SEC -- 10 teams

 Big 12 -- 3

PAC/MWC -- 1

AAC -- 1 

 

If this year's rankings are any indication, it's going to be harder than I was originally thinking for the B12 to get two teams in.

 

Well, at least the PAC-4 can say that 25% of the conference is ranked.

6 hours ago, LTbear said:

That just doesn't sound like a Stanford thing to do.

Well they wouldn't really leave their conference.  That would be like Duke trying to flee the ACC to. . . 

 

They should try approaching FSU/Clemson, however awkward.  Surely there is someone at those schools desperate for a pat on the head from the ruling class. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,457]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

If Cal and Stanford were smart (what a weird world we live in when I can honestly start a sentence that way) they should have been secretly negotiating with the Big 12 behind under a NDA.

Once Oregon and Washington left, they could have pulled the trigger and leap frogged over ASU/Utah, both schools that clearly don’t want to be in the B12 and schools in duplicate markets/states that are already in (or invited) the conference.

I get that many in here oppose them for political reasons, but two schools in SFO including an every other year ND game (and I assume USC too at some point) would be far more valuable for the conference in the long term.

I don’t oppose them for political reasons, I oppose them because they don’t care about sports.

ASU fans seem pretty happy with the move, and even Utah fans have quickly changed their tune.

Cal and Stanford would have all of administrative snobbery of ASU/Utah, with absolutely nothing to bring to revenue sports.

[statsman 5,457]

I don’t get all the ACC bashing. The ACC has terrific football and basketball teams. It has two weaknesses-a below market media contract-That is finite- and a few teams that aspire to the SP2. 
 
The B12 has two advantages-a favorable media contract (for eight years more) and no teams desired by other conferences. 
 
The B12 has more stability. That doesn’t make the football and basketball better, nor does it put 65,000 fans in the seats.