Realignment talk not going away

[BurntOrange&White 40010]

1 hour ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

The Big 10 is full of truly terrible football programs. It shouldn't be very hard for USC to win 9 or 10 games and get into the playoff.

USC will win 7-8 games in regular season

[Asu2215 247]

On 6/16/2024 at 3:44 PM, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

The Big 10 is full of truly terrible football programs. It shouldn't be very hard for USC to win 9 or 10 games and get into the playoff.

They had trouble winning 9 or 10 in the even more shitty P12. 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

On 6/17/2024 at 6:39 PM, Asu2215 said:

They had trouble winning 9 or 10 in the even more shitty P12. 

From a scheduling standpoint, the Big 10 is going to be easier more often than it's not. Not easier to win the conference, but easier to win 10 games.

[Frank Drebin 5655]

1 hour ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

From a scheduling standpoint, the Big 10 is going to be easier more often than it's not. Not easier to win the conference, but easier to win 10 games.

Yep. A lot of mediocre talent and teams that run easy to defend schemes from the 1980s

[bullet 1599]

On 6/17/2024 at 7:39 PM, Asu2215 said:

They had trouble winning 9 or 10 in the even more shitty P12. 

We had trouble winning 9 or 10 in the Big 12.  All it takes the right coach and USC will start winning again.

[bullet 1599]

This guy seems to think FSU (and others) will be out of the ACC in the relatively near future according to his contacts in the legal profession.  Josh Pate is with 247, so you can take it or leave it:

 

 

[LTbear 4171]

Interesante 

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

It seems pretty inevitable that something like this is happening:

FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami to the SEC

ND and UVA to the Big 10

VA Tech, Louisville, Pitt, NCSU to the Big 12.

The wealthier 2 will have 20 schools and probably stop there.  If there were schools in the Big 12 that they believed made them money, they'd already be in those leagues.  The Big 12 could add more of the ACC leftovers depending on what TV wants (obviously Cuse and Duke would be great for hoops).  The playoffs will be something where you see 4 SEC schools, 4 Big 10 schools, 2-3 Big 12 schools and 1-2 G5.  The Big 10 and SEC will stay way ahead financially, secure more playoff spots, but there will be a market for that third conference and it will get a (lesser) seat at the table. 

I don't know if those 60+ schools create a new division or not.  I'm not really sure it's necessary, or that there's all that much demand for that but maybe there is.  But I think this next step is a further solidification of what kind of exists or seems to be in motion now.

[LTbear 4171]

55 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It seems pretty inevitable that something like this is happening:

FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami to the SEC

ND and UVA to the Big 10

VA Tech, Louisville, Pitt, NCSU to the Big 12.

The wealthier 2 will have 20 schools and probably stop there.  If there were schools in the Big 12 that they believed made them money, they'd already be in those leagues.  The Big 12 could add more of the ACC leftovers depending on what TV wants (obviously Cuse and Duke would be great for hoops).  The playoffs will be something where you see 4 SEC schools, 4 Big 10 schools, 2-3 Big 12 schools and 1-2 G5.  The Big 10 and SEC will stay way ahead financially, secure more playoff spots, but there will be a market for that third conference and it will get a (lesser) seat at the table. 

I don't know if those 60+ schools create a new division or not.  I'm not really sure it's necessary, or that there's all that much demand for that but maybe there is.  But I think this next step is a further solidification of what kind of exists or seems to be in motion now.

I don't think the SEC will take both FSU and Miami. Also think ND will stay independent. But who knows. The four you pick I like for the Big XII/ would be a great way to round out the eastern end of the league. Unless by some miracle Miami is available, then swap them in for one of the others. 

[Saint Austin 745]

I think I'd rather have Virginia than Miami. UVA expands the SEC's footprint, and Miami appears to be regressing back into a commuter school with its best football days behind it.

[LTbear 4171]

5 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

I think I'd rather have Virginia than Miami. UVA expands the SEC's footprint, and Miami appears to be regressing back into a commuter school with its best football days behind it.

Miami has also increased their number of international students quite a bit for the past decade. Fewer students/ young alumni they are really football-centric in culture. 

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

32 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

I think I'd rather have Virginia than Miami. UVA expands the SEC's footprint, and Miami appears to be regressing back into a commuter school with its best football days behind it.

The exact mix of who goes where out of those top 6 is a little tough to predict.  I think the Big 10 and SEC taking ACC teams will force ND into the Big 10 if only to actually keep their rivalries.  Or maybe they do some hybrid deal with the Big 10 kind of like what they did the ACC.

I do think that the revenue sharing is going to change a lot in the future, and that may make Notre Dame more willing to participate.  They aren't going to sign up for some egalitarian relationship with Purdue and Indiana.  They may sign up for something where they essentially make what they earn and it's a scheduling arrangement.

Maybe the Big 10 would prefer Miami from a market stand point and to have a Florida presence, but UVA fits in with Rutgers, MD, and Penn State.  Regardless, it seems like the top 4-5 brands in the ACC will end up in the SEC and Big 10, and the next tier will have to decide if they're better off trying to fill in with G5s or just hook up with the Big 12, and it seems like the choice there is pretty clear.

Edited June 24 by Al_4_ISU

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

I don't think the SEC will take both FSU and Miami. Also think ND will stay independent. But who knows. The four you pick I like for the Big XII/ would be a great way to round out the eastern end of the league. Unless by some miracle Miami is available, then swap them in for one of the others. 

I'd legit prefer all of those 4 over Miami, personally.  They all seem like Big 12 schools.  Miami doesn't.

['stache 21866]

It seems to me that Big 10 has value because of population and to some extent academics, SEC has value because of product and eyeballs. UNC and UVA just feel like Big 10 fits way more than SEC. Mediocre football at best. After FSU and Clemson I just don’t see who adds value to the SEC. Maybe Miami because of the helmet? They just haven’t been good for a long long time. Who knows anymore. I just want to get to the finals of this carousel.

[LTbear 4171]

18 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd legit prefer all of those 4 over Miami, personally.  They all seem like Big 12 schools.  Miami doesn't.

Fair enough. I think Miami may be a better add than Pitt, personally, even though I'd love the Backyard Brawl to be an annual Big XII event. I obviously won't complain with either though. 

[Vertigo 20332]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It seems pretty inevitable that something like this is happening:

FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami to the SEC

ND and UVA to the Big 10

VA Tech, Louisville, Pitt, NCSU to the Big 12.

The wealthier 2 will have 20 schools and probably stop there.  If there were schools in the Big 12 that they believed made them money, they'd already be in those leagues.  The Big 12 could add more of the ACC leftovers depending on what TV wants (obviously Cuse and Duke would be great for hoops).  The playoffs will be something where you see 4 SEC schools, 4 Big 10 schools, 2-3 Big 12 schools and 1-2 G5.  The Big 10 and SEC will stay way ahead financially, secure more playoff spots, but there will be a market for that third conference and it will get a (lesser) seat at the table. 

I don't know if those 60+ schools create a new division or not.  I'm not really sure it's necessary, or that there's all that much demand for that but maybe there is.  But I think this next step is a further solidification of what kind of exists or seems to be in motion now.

If the SEC were to take FSU and Clemson, I think it would be for defensive purposes. They aren't really additive in terms of territory and they aren't going to move the needle all that much on the TV contract. I think FSU is vastly overvaluing itself right now. I could see a world where the SEC and B1G tells them to take a hike and they end up in the B12 if the TV partners don't want to play ball. But in reality, I know that they likely aren't trying this hard to break this contract unless they have some sort of wink and nod agreement with one of the major conferences. 

['stache 21866]

2 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

If the SEC were to take FSU and Clemson, I think it would be for defensive purposes. They aren't really additive in terms of territory and they aren't going to move the needle all that much on the TV contract. I think FSU is vastly overvaluing itself right now. I could see a world where the SEC and B1G tells them to take a hike and they end up in the B12 if the TV partners don't want to play ball. But in reality, I know that they likely aren't trying this hard to break this contract unless they have some sort of wink and nod agreement with one of the major conferences. 

I don't think "territory" matters anymore, it's solely about TV ratings since live sports is one of the only areas left where viewers can't avoid commercials (other than taking a piss same as it always was). It's why I think FSU and Clemson are about the only ACC teams that bring value to the SEC. What does territory in North Carolina and Virgina matter? The TV ratings just aren't that high.

[LTbear 4171]

21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't think "territory" matters anymore, it's solely about TV ratings since live sports is one of the only areas left where viewers can't avoid commercials (other than taking a piss same as it always was). It's why I think FSU and Clemson are about the only ACC teams that bring value to the SEC. What does territory in North Carolina and Virgina matter? The TV ratings just aren't that high.

Yep. FSU/ Clemson vs Bama/ Georgia/ Florida etc. could be a ratings wet dream for the networks. 

[6th Street 6508]

UVA and UNC are highly coveted by the SEC. Flagship universities in decent sized states and contiguous to the SEC geo footprint. 

[CustersDoctor 584]

The fact that CAL & Stanford get ZERO mentions on this page is hilarious. Forgetting them isn't on us. It's on CalFord. They weren't even a serious contender for the BIG12 and for some reason the ACC thought they'd turn the attic into a room for them. And they are letting SMU sleep in the yard. It just illustrates at how, not only did CalFordSmu not add value, but they damaged the brand.

[LTbear 4171]

56 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

The fact that CAL & Stanford get ZERO mentions on this page is hilarious. Forgetting them isn't on us. It's on CalFord. They weren't even a serious contender for the BIG12 and for some reason the ACC thought they'd turn the attic into a room for them. And they are letting SMU sleep in the yard. It just illustrates at how, not only did CalFordSmu not add value, but they damaged the brand.

Hilarious, or just expected? I have a doctorate from Berkeley and did a fellowship at Stanford (during their recent peak no less), and neither has a football-minded culture. Would not be surprised to see them take some academic-minded leftovers from the ACC fallout and try to stitch something new together (along with OSU and WSU). 

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

5 hours ago, Vertigo said:

If the SEC were to take FSU and Clemson, I think it would be for defensive purposes. They aren't really additive in terms of territory and they aren't going to move the needle all that much on the TV contract. I think FSU is vastly overvaluing itself right now. I could see a world where the SEC and B1G tells them to take a hike and they end up in the B12 if the TV partners don't want to play ball. But in reality, I know that they likely aren't trying this hard to break this contract unless they have some sort of wink and nod agreement with one of the major conferences. 

I think FSU and Clemson still bring in viewers, and like you said, they wouldn't be going this hard to break things up unless they knew they had a soft landing somewhere.

IMO, if FSU and Clemson aren't moving the needle TV wise, then I don't know that any schools outside of the SEC and Big 10 (excluding ND of course) move the needle for TV.

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

5 hours ago, 'stache said:

It seems to me that Big 10 has value because of population and to some extent academics, SEC has value because of product and eyeballs. UNC and UVA just feel like Big 10 fits way more than SEC. Mediocre football at best. After FSU and Clemson I just don’t see who adds value to the SEC. Maybe Miami because of the helmet? They just haven’t been good for a long long time. Who knows anymore. I just want to get to the finals of this carousel.

The historic cache of Michigan and Ohio State is a lot of it too.

[TKthunder2 4997]

11 hours ago, 'stache said:

I don't think "territory" matters anymore, it's solely about TV ratings since live sports is one of the only areas left where viewers can't avoid commercials (other than taking a piss same as it always was). It's why I think FSU and Clemson are about the only ACC teams that bring value to the SEC. What does territory in North Carolina and Virgina matter? The TV ratings just aren't that high.

You could be right on UVA (I’ve seen Virginia Tech fans make good arguments against them) but you are 100% wrong on UNC, they likely are the MOST valuable property still out there not named Notre Dame.

If a school left the SEC and they were looking for a single replacement, UNC would be the first call, hands down.

11 hours ago, 6th Street said:

UVA and UNC are highly coveted by the SEC. Flagship universities in decent sized states and contiguous to the SEC geo footprint. 

I agree. UVA isn’t as clear but those two schools do check every box except football.

Large public flagship universities in geography contiguous Southern states with large populations and new media markets that excel in basketball, baseball, non rev sports, and (even though that doesn’t matter that much) elite academics.

Adding just FSU/Clemson means 10 out of 18 teams have CFP/BCS titles and the league might be too competitive. But if you bring them in along with UNC/UVA you improve every aspect of the league while keeping the competition similar to what it currently is.

[DFW Horn 6207]

12 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Adding just FSU/Clemson means 10 out of 18 teams have CFP/BCS titles and the league might be too competitive. But if you bring them in along with UNC/UVA you improve every aspect of the league while keeping the competition similar to what it currently is.

Yeah, do this to get to 20. 

You know these two are at the top of the B1G's wish list.

[statsman 5479]

It’s fun to play these games of adding teams, but reality does have to come into play when it’s time to make schedules. The SEC is at 16 teams, and has an eight game schedule that will suffice for two seasons. After that, it needs to go to nine games or teams (like Arkansas) that expect to play an opponent every year will have to adjust their expectations. 
 
The B1G has 18 teams, and plays a nine game league schedule. They have 12 protected rivalry games (not every B1G has a protected rivalry, and Iowa has as many as three) and commit to each school playing every other school at least twice every five years. 
 
So, if the B1G takes two more teams, what then? (I understand very well that if ND calls they will figure out a way). If the SEC takes two more, what then?

I know FSU and Clemson are acting as if this were all worked out, but, I wonder if it isn’t. 

[thunderlounge 7935]

39 minutes ago, statsman said:

I know FSU and Clemson are acting as if this were all worked out, but, I wonder if it isn’t. 

I’ve wondered that myself.

I came to the conclusion that if it were worked out that far ahead, so would scheduling (on paper, votes are another matter obviously), and other details. Or I should say, a plan, at least.

To think nothing was learned from this round, good and bad, would be quite silly. And honestly, with the way things went down way too early, it wouldn’t surprise me if they had a plan that went sideways due to the timing of it all.

Two more summers and they would have had time to better align and work things. Instead they were shoved into the spotlight 2 years early.

 

[bullet 1599]

On 6/24/2024 at 11:42 AM, LTbear said:

Yep. FSU/ Clemson vs Bama/ Georgia/ Florida etc. could be a ratings wet dream for the networks. 

Agreed.  Below are the TV ratings per the Sic-em analysis from 2013-21 for ACC and Big 12 schools.  Only 4 schools are ahead of Stanford who wasn't valuable enough to get in the Big 10 or to get a full share in the ACC, but FSU and Clemson rate pretty high:

Edited June 26 by bullet

[bullet 1599]

These are the ACC and Big 12 schools.

[TKthunder2 4997]

On 6/26/2024 at 5:06 PM, bullet said:

Agreed.  Below are the TV ratings per the Sic-em analysis from 2013-21 for ACC and Big 12 schools.  Only 4 schools are ahead of Stanford who wasn't valuable enough to get in the Big 10 or to get a full share in the ACC, but FSU and Clemson rate pretty high:

UNC’s numbers don’t bother me if you’re bringing them into the SEC with FSU/Clemson but this is exactly why I’m less confident in Virginia.

UVA checks a lot of boxes, but football/viewership is not one of them. If added, they likely join Vanderbilt football as a near permanent fixture on the SECN each Saturday.

Virginia Tech’s numbers, despite not having the best decade, are respectable and their stadium is the 4th largest in campus stadium not in the SEC/B1G (a good indicator of fan support).

[Texas Wahoo 3418]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

UNC’s numbers don’t bother me if you’re bringing them into the SEC with FSU/Clemson but this is exactly why I’m less confident in Virginia.

UVA checks a lot of boxes, but football/viewership is not one of them. If added, they likely join Vanderbilt football as a near permanent fixture on the SECN each Saturday.

Virginia Tech’s numbers, despite not having the best decade, are respectable and their stadium is the 4th largest in campus stadium not in the SEC/B1G (a good indicator of fan support).

UVA only makes sense if you're bringing them in with UNC in order to keep "the oldest rivalry in the south" together and in order to get a piece of Virginia.  My guess is that if UNC is able to move without NC State, etc., they are going to have an easier time moving if they are going with their historic rival.

[gatormarc 915]

Lot of scuttlebutt on the FSU boards that they will announce soon a move to the B1G. 

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

Josh Pate keeps hinting at ACC destruction this month.  Have to imagine this goes down much like the PAC.

It'll be curious to see how ND and the SEC are playing their cards here.  I feel like the Big 10 has more of an internal need to grow than the SEC does, but they also always seem to feel compelled to respond.  FSU has always felt more SEC to me, but the SEC has plenty of the Florida market eyeballs already.

Edited July 1 by Al_4_ISU

[gatormarc 915]

16 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Josh Pate keeps hinting at ACC destruction this month.  Have to imagine this goes down much like the PAC.

It'll be curious to see how ND and the SEC are playing their cards here.  I feel like the Big 10 has more of an internal need to grow than the SEC does, but they also always seem to feel compelled to respond.  FSU has always felt more SEC to me, but the SEC has plenty of the Florida market eyeballs already.

Hard to imaging it goes down the same as the Pac 12.

1) I don't think the SEC wants to expand more. I think they would be very selective still and at most take 2 if the opportunity was right.

2) B1G is already at an ugly 18. I mean I guess they could decide to go really big -- most of their decisions have been only about short term money and not about culture -- but even if they go after 2 or 4, that still leaves 10/11 team ACC.

3) The Big 12 can't have much of an appetite to expand unless some big market program falls in their lap like Miami or Georgia Tech.

So you still have a 8-11 team ACC that is still a step above the G5 and would have an option to snag a USF to get the Florida market back.

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

1 minute ago, gatormarc said:

Hard to imaging it goes down the same as the Pac 12.

1) I don't think the SEC wants to expand more. I think they would be very selective still and at most take 2 if the opportunity was right.

2) B1G is already at an ugly 18. I mean I guess they could decide to go really big -- most of their decisions have been only about short term money and not about culture -- but even if they go after 2 or 4, that still leaves 10/11 team ACC.

3) The Big 12 can't have much of an appetite to expand unless some big market program falls in their lap like Miami or Georgia Tech.

So you still have a 8-11 team ACC that is still a step above the G5 and would have an option to snag a USF to get the Florida market back.

I don't think the SEC wants to expand more either, but I think that they have always felt somewhat compelled to match the Big 10.

If the SEC doesn't expand, I think your situation makes sense.  You would have an ACC that's clearly behind the Big 12, clearly ahead of the G5, and just creates essentially another tier in college sports.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

21 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Josh Pate keeps hinting at ACC destruction this month.  Have to imagine this goes down much like the PAC.

It'll be curious to see how ND and the SEC are playing their cards here.  I feel like the Big 10 has more of an internal need to grow than the SEC does, but they also always seem to feel compelled to respond.  FSU has always felt more SEC to me, but the SEC has plenty of the Florida market eyeballs already.

This.

The SEC does not need to grow.  Matter a fact they should not grow.    They're already trying to monetize the 9th conference game and getting push back from ESPN.    Adding more teams, at this point, is adding them to a second tier, much like the Oregon/Washington adds.    FSU/Clemson would not be added full, no matter what the SEC always does, because there is zero way to pay for them at full with the current structure.   You'd have to go to 9 and you'd have to have someone pay a premium for 9 who already owns all your games as it is.   It just so happens that that same partner owns the rights to FSU/Clemson as well as UNC and that partner DOES NOT want to lose the rights to UNC/DUKE basketball, which if you haven't noticed, drives the bus during basketball season.   Granted, not as big as football, but every big game on ESPN for the ACC is either UNC v Duke or someone against UNC or Duke.  They are the engine that grew ESPN in the 90s and it still powers the off NBA slots to this day.

So, at the moment, this is an all-ESPN transaction.   They don't want to lose UNC/Duke nor FSU/Clemson everyone else is kind of fodder.    The only place they own completely is the SEC, but they'd need to pay these four schools $320m a year to join the SEC, which they're not worth.   

The Big Ten is structured completely differently with 3 media partners, but is already tapping out on inventory space.    Adding more inventory takes slots away from old school hanger ons, who have votes too.   And if Oregon/Washington came in on the cheap, FSU/Clemson aren't coming in full.    At that point I wonder if the Big12's PE connection could offer more.   However, along those lines, with three media partners in place and coast to coast inventory, the Big Ten is no longer a regional conference like the SEC, it could easily become a consortium.  Partner up with PE, buy 4-6 ACC properties now and tier them with some of your under performers.   Then in 2030 inhale the Big12 and own all the inventory but 16 teams.   PE wins.

None of this comes to pass though, unless this thing is true that the ACC didn't sign the extension to 2036 and needs to reup in 2027.   If that is true, that's FSU's out.    Even if I still can't see who gives them the money they want.

 

[gatormarc 915]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I don't think the SEC wants to expand more either, but I think that they have always felt somewhat compelled to match the Big 10.

I think it's mostly been the other way around.

SEC expands to 12 to get a conference championship game - Arkansas and South Carolina

B1G added Penn State and tried to add Notre Dame to get to 12 teams to get a conference championship game. ND balks.

They later add Nebraska when it's clear that ND won't come.

SEC expands with A&M and Mizzou.

B1G panic adds Rutgers and Maryland. Both schools are in such bad shape, they take partial payments to do it.

SEC expands with Texas and OU

B1G panic adds USC and UCLA, schools 2 timezones away; and then later Oregon and Washington which only works because they are willing to take partial payments.

 

[mdmost 43050]

Adding FSU and Clemson just dilutes your overall product more. I don't mean that from the perspective of either not being a good add. They are great adds. I mean from the perspective that you're now making it more difficult for your best teams to play each other and you have to work to keep traditional rivalries going. You already have a shitload of money. Why take on more mouths and make your conference unwieldy? 

From listening to Sankey yesterday, he seems more than content to have just Texas and OU. Clemson and FSU, while great, are not worth getting to a stupidly high number when you already have difficulty getting teams to play each other with 16 teams. 

I know there's this idea that the conferences will eventually split off but I don't see that being desirous for either unless the TV money makes it worthwhile. I haven't seen anything from ESPN or Fox that makes me think they're in a position to pay even more. 

Edited July 1 by mdmost

['stache 21866]

The ACC posted their big welcome to SMU, Cal, and Stanford this morning, but the PAC schools aren't in until August 1. The Big XII social media this morning just removed OU and Texas. Just seems really weird to me that ACC would jump the gun. If SMU is official as of today, why not just give them the spotlight?

[gatormarc 915]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

The ACC posted their big welcome to SMU, Cal, and Stanford this morning, but the PAC schools aren't in until August 1. The Big XII social media this morning just removed OU and Texas. Just seems really weird to me that ACC would jump the gun. If SMU is official as of today, why not just give them the spotlight?

The Pac 12 also removed everyone yesterday from their website.

https://pac-12.com/

[DFW Horn 6207]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The ACC posted their big welcome to SMU, Cal, and Stanford this morning, but the PAC schools aren't in until August 1. The Big XII social media this morning just removed OU and Texas. Just seems really weird to me that ACC would jump the gun. If SMU is official as of today, why not just give them the spotlight?

No official, "Welcome to the Big 12" for CU, AZ, ASU, and UU.

[DFW Horn 6207]

 

[DFW Horn 6207]

All it took was agreeing to forgo TV revenue shares for...how many years? Good thing SMU can afford it.

[gatormarc 915]

7 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

10 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The ACC posted their big welcome to SMU, Cal, and Stanford this morning, but the PAC schools aren't in until August 1. The Big XII social media this morning just removed OU and Texas. Just seems really weird to me that ACC would jump the gun. If SMU is official as of today, why not just give them the spotlight?

The Pac 12 also removed everyone yesterday from their website.

https://pac-12.com/

Though all of the individual members save Stanford still have Pac-12 logos on their websites.

At some point, Stanford removed the Pac-12 logo from the footer of their site and added corporate sponsors.

['stache 21866]

3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

No official, "Welcome to the Big 12" for CU, AZ, ASU, and UU.

Because they're not official until August 1. It seems the should have given SMU the spotlight today since they are official, and Cal Stanford the spotlight Aug 1 when they become official. 

[gatormarc 915]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Because they're not official until August 1. It seems the should have given SMU the spotlight today since they are official, and Cal Stanford the spotlight Aug 1 when they become official. 

ACC poorly managed to say?

[DFW Horn 6207]

 

[BurntOrange&White 40010]

Disagree with the SEC shouldn’t grow train of thought. That kind of mentality is shortsighted. Sec should be very selective on who it grows with though. 
 

Florida State and North Carolina are the two no brainers to take from the ACC should the opportunity come. After that I can’t see many others worth taking. Maybe Duke for basketball alone. I can’t make much argument for Miami for Virginia to be part of that though. 

[gatormarc 915]

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

9 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

 

 

I can't imagine the B1G is interested in anyone outside UVA, UNC and ND.