Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17777]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I get why you don't care about playing us or the Kansas schools.  I don't understand not wanting to play schools that whose fans you interact with on a daily basis and have played for 100 years.

I would love to be playing a more regional schedule against schools I dislike for old petty reasons and whose fans annoy me.  That's what make college sports fun.  I don't understand college sports fans who don't want more of that in their schedule.

Drunk?  I made that post stone sober.  I was in perfectly fine spirits until that dickweed with an extremely similar handle to you came flying in guns blazing.

You understand you're on a Texas board right?  

 

Frankly I don't give a shit about Tech, TCU and SMU and I'm pretty sure they don't care about us.  I loathe UH and Baylor, but not because they're rivals, because they are shit stain schools with shit stain fanbases.  Never cared about playing any of those schools an am glad to leave.  

[Hurtlocker 2219]

19 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

 

There are going to be a lot of Big 10 games that end up boring the shit out of you.  Why play those boring games on the other side of the country?

 

Not to speak for Trojan, but my guess would be to play Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska.  

I like the geographic lay out and it makes sense east of the Missouri river where things are more compact.  And, outside teams like Iowa State and West Virginia, who are surrounded by teams in other conferences they could, and likely should be playing, most schools are set up that way.   USC and UCLA are an outlier in this regard, but Texas is playing close geographic games.   Baton Rouge is basically the same distance away as Tech, but east, where there are more people, and closer to other schools.   In the distance from Texas to Morgantown is basically the entirety of the SEC.  

Though to an earlier point, all of this requires rivals.  Iowa State is not a hated rival of Oklahoma, the Sooner's have won nearly 90% of the time.   In order for that to work, you need to be competitive.   The point Oklahoma was making is "it doesn't mater if we curb stomped you for 100 years, we can't fill seats curb stomping you. You failed to be relevant until recently."  Granted, nothing you can do about what athletic departments did before the invention of the ipod, but it's part of the equation.  

 

[closetojumping 65245]

41 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Maybe hearing the perspective of a fan whose school is in a similar situation as Texas but has zero bad blood with the Big 12 (besides kneecapping Oklahoma's program, lol) will help remove some of the emotion from it.  It's fun to have those kinds of bitter games when the hatred is mutual; it's not so fun when you view it as just another game while all of the bitterness and hatred comes from the other side.  Texas will still have their mutual hatred games in the SEC with Oklahoma and A&M.  USC will still play UCLA in the B1G, plus Notre Dame isn't leaving the schedule.  I'm still getting my fix of the teams I love to hate after USC leaves the Pac 12.  People like to joke about USC soon playing conference games against Rutgers and Maryland...but for USC fans it isn't that different from conference games against teams like Colorado and Washington State we already didn't give a fuck about.

What I give a fuck about is finally being in a conference with peer programs instead of sticking out as the Goliath lightning rod for a conference full of Davids looking for somebody to hate and blame for all their problems and circle as their Super Bowl.  Swapping games against Pac 12 teams I don't care about playing for games against B1G teams I won't care about playing is an acceptable tradeoff to get what I want.  If the left behind Pac 12 teams are upset they're losing a bitter regional hatred game where 95% of the bitter hatred comes from their side, that's their problem.  It's also a failure on their part to consider how the departing team's fans view realignment because like I said USC will continue playing the teams our fanbase actually does hate.

Only one side of this equation is bemoaning the loss of regional hatred because only one side ever had those feelings in the first place.  For example, USC has much bigger goals than winning dogfights in front of 30K people at Oregon State while a top 10 list of best ever Oregon State football moments would include multiple upsets over USC.  In every single way except travel and questionable definitions of regional hatred it's more beneficial for USC to drop Oregon State and replace them with Ohio State.  USC beats Ohio State?  It's the story of the week, the entire country watched, it's a nice feather in the cap for recruiting.  USC beats Oregon State?  Nobody even noticed because it was a Pac 12 After Dark kickoff on the Pac 12 Network.  USC loses to Ohio State?  Quality loss, you only drop 3 spots in the rankings and your season isn't over.  USC loses to Oregon State?  The season is totally fucked, that loss is a scarlet letter and you plummet double digits in the rankings.  It's also the story of the week so have fun seeing the highlights during pregame and halftime of any other game you watch.  Ohio State comes to the Coliseum?  Huge event, crowd will be over-capacity, if you can't attend reselling your tickets will pay for your season tickets.  Oregon State comes to the Coliseum?  Zzz, that's the kind of game they make you buy in a bundle if you want to also get tickets against Notre Dame or UCLA.  Ohio State helps make more money for USC, Oregon State's athletic department lives on welfare checks taken out of USC's revenue.  I'm not compelled to give up all those benefits of leaving the Pac 12 for the B1G because people who aren't USC fans don't like that USC will no longer play other West Coast teams.

This is damned near a perfect representation of how many Texas fans feel about all of this. Well done.

Also and btw to those who think admins function as money-siphoning robots and nothing more when it comes to realignment, get a grip. Texas and OU were absolutely ecstatic about the prospect of better match-ups and spurring fan growth and interest when it came down to analyzing their options. Fucking Eltife, Hartzell and CDC will tell you that that absolutely was part of the math. The soft drivers weren't viewed as zero ROI components. I guarantee you that there were many soft drivers akin to that for USC and UCLA. Such matters were articulated behind closed doors with politicians, boosters, and media platforms in order to help justify the moves of the 4 schools. 

[Trojan Man 429]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My pipe dream is getting rid of the entire idea of conferences altogether.  It's just D1 football with geographic divisions that feed playoffs.  That's it.  Rankings wouldn't matter, perception wouldn't matter.  Win and you're in.  Revenues would be distributed on some ratings basis so you wouldn't have leeches and cows.  The schools that bring eyeballs get paid more than the ones who don't - straight up.  You also have 4 open dates to play all of these other interesting programs every year while having enough likely wins on the schedule to stay competitive.

There are going to be a lot of Big 10 games that end up boring the shit out of you.  Why play those boring games on the other side of the country?

In this proposed model, all the complaints about conference jealousy and infighting become moot.  Your school can associate with whomever the fuck it wants to you for whatever fucking reason.  But the sports would make sense.  As a fan of a David school, I don't need a Goliath in my life.  I want to play against schools that are close to mine, similar to mine, and who's fans I will casually interact with.  There really isn't a Goliath (Nebraska once was, but those days are long gone) that meets those criteria.

It's fun to think about what a perfect CFB world looks like, but even your version of it would still have a lot of the same problems that led to super conference realignment.  Basing revenue on ratings sounds good on paper but it's heavily dependent on who you play and what time you play them and what channel you're on.  The biggest ratings drivers are mostly clustered in the same divisions (Rust Belt, South, South Plains), which will create a feedback loop where they always get the best windows because they always have the highest ratings.  USC/Oregon at 10:30 PM ET and Penn State/Virginia Tech at noon will get lapped in ratings by Texas/LSU at 3:30 and Notre Dame/Michigan at 7.  That would lead to a revenue gap where teams like USC and Penn State and Florida State and Clemson hate not having enough divisional peers to help them drive up ratings and try to realign with similar programs.  Why should USC and Penn State take financial and recruiting hits to play bullshit games with San Diego State and Boston College while Ohio State and Alabama rake in the money and the recruits since they have more big time foes in their divisions?

Yes, you're absolutely right there will be B1G games that bore me.  Going to the Notre Dame game is enough Indiana for me so I doubt I'll be making road trips against the Hoosiers and the Boilermakers.  The part you're not getting is there are already lots of Pac 12 games that bore me.  USC's conference home schedule last year was a fucking joke.  Arizona State, Washington State, Cal and Colorado on a Friday night.  In the B1G USC will get 6 games against Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State every 4 years plus games against Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa and Nebraska.  Nothing the Pac 12 offers can match that.  I'll miss playing Washington, but they were only on USC's schedule half the time anyways.  Cal was fun in the 2000s when they had Tedford and Stanford was fun too during the Harbaugh and Shaw eras, but I don't see either of them competing in the NIL transfer portal era so I'm not weeping over leaving them.  As for the rest of the Pac 12 it wouldn't bother me a bit if USC never played any of them again after 2023.

23 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Wow, that’s dark. If they can all just leave the PAC12 and let it, as an entity, default that would be a crazy outcome…meanwhile Colorado is still look for way to pay Coach Prime.

It probably won't happen the way I laid it out, but that's the beauty of conference realignment.  It provides near infinite wild scenarios that are just plausible enough you can entertain the possibility.  In any case, it appears Washington State's administration is acknowledging this potential outcome.

[Kwix 2478]

52 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

What I give a fuck about is finally being in a conference with peer programs instead of sticking out as the Goliath lightning rod for a conference full of Davids looking for somebody to hate and blame for all their problems and circle as their Super Bowl. 

Put this on a fucking t-shirt

[Hurtlocker 2219]

2 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

This is damned near a perfect representation of how many Texas fans feel about all of this. Well done.

Also and btw to those who think admins function as money-siphoning robots and nothing more when it comes to realignment, get a grip. Texas and OU were absolutely ecstatic about the prospect of better match-ups and spurring fan growth and interest when it came down to analyzing their options. Fucking Eltife, Hartzell and CDC will tell you that that absolutely was part of the math. The soft drivers weren't viewed as zero ROI components. I guarantee you that there were many soft drivers akin to that for USC and UCLA. Such matters were articulated behind closed doors with politicians, boosters, and media platforms in order to help justify the moves of the 4 schools. 

Yeah I've said it for a while now, none of this move had anything to do with money.  Not that money is bad, but that's kind of like a secondary feature of this.   Even in the B12, Texas was making more than SEC schools due to the LHN and LHN money going away is basically paying for a lot of Texas' check in the SEC.   The broadcasting revenue will go up, but not like triple, Texas was already making $60m from the B12 and the B12 was set to get a raise this cycle too, which is why the current teams didn't decrease.   On top of that, Texas Football made like $100m, more than most athletic departments, in one sport.   It prints money without broadcasting.    The SEC isn't making Texas rich, Texas is making Oklahoma rich.  

This is all about exposure.   The Texas/Alabama game last year had more media exposure than every single regular season game in the entire Big 12, including the River, and it was out of conference.   It got more smoke than Bama/A&M and this move puts more opportunities for events like that.   Per @DFW Horn's point, which was spot on, Texas, along with Alabama and Georgia, is now front in center of ESPN's hype train in a way it never was before.   Hype and exposure brings in opportunities and finances that dwarf these broadcasting rights conversations.   More importantly, its what fills recruiting pipelines, which keeps the train moving.  

That's what this move is about.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

6 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not to speak for Trojan, but my guess would be to play Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska.  

I like the geographic lay out and it makes sense east of the Missouri river where things are more compact.  And, outside teams like Iowa State and West Virginia, who are surrounded by teams in other conferences they could, and likely should be playing, most schools are set up that way.   USC and UCLA are an outlier in this regard, but Texas is playing close geographic games.   Baton Rouge is basically the same distance away as Tech, but east, where there are more people, and closer to other schools.   In the distance from Texas to Morgantown is basically the entirety of the SEC.  

Though to an earlier point, all of this requires rivals.  Iowa State is not a hated rival of Oklahoma, the Sooner's have won nearly 90% of the time.   In order for that to work, you need to be competitive.   The point Oklahoma was making is "it doesn't mater if we curb stomped you for 100 years, we can't fill seats curb stomping you. You failed to be relevant until recently."  Granted, nothing you can do about what athletic departments did before the invention of the ipod, but it's part of the equation.  

 

I understand blue bloods wanting more meaningful games, and I think my pipe dream proposal addresses that.

No matter what conference one plays, there are going to be games against schools that aren’t peer schools (unless some 12 team all blue blood thing materializes).  Getting rid of conferences altogether and having a divisional schedule to set up a playoff where TV money is distributed on a viewership basis seems like it would give everyone what they are seeking, but I guess I underestimated the overall butthurt that many have about playing their lesser games on a geographic basis.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I understand blue bloods wanting more meaningful games, and I think my pipe dream proposal addresses that.

No matter what conference one plays, there are going to be games against schools that aren’t peer schools (unless some 12 team all blue blood thing materializes).  Getting rid of conferences altogether and having a divisional schedule to set up a playoff where TV money is distributed on a viewership basis seems like it would give everyone what they are seeking, but I guess I underestimated the overall butthurt that many have about playing their lesser games on a geographic basis.

I'm actually a fan of your proposal, to a point.  The upside is, as you point out, a joint media contract.   The fragmentation of college football is degrading the earning potential of everyone, including the blue bloods.   If 48-72 schools evaporated conferences and went to market with shared rights they'd control the narrative in a way that makes the current B1G deal look like pocket change.   The problem prior to 1984 was they had all the games but didn't do anything with them.   Flip that script and there are additional billions that are being left on the table.

That being said, I think your proposal is too deep and relies too much on 3-4 out of conference games to generate interest.   To maximize revenue, you need:

• brand names playing
• close competitive games with something on the line
• regional meaning

That's really what brings value in a TV contract and I don't think you can do it with 72 teams on an even playing field any more because the brands don't play enough or until the end of the season.   To do it you'd need to go EPL on this bitch by taking your 72 teams and breaking it into three leagues with relegation and promotion.   This means the top brands will always likely be in the top bracket, making broadcasters mint weekly, R/P battles increase ratings by giving multiple things to play for, and a combined contract can fracture or mirror broadcasts so that ABC, for instance, can maximize eyeballs like they do the NFL by having a game only on TV in the area its being played, but then being streamed nationally.

How that would break out with teams and geography isn't something i feel like playing with, but it would maximize revenue and keep geographic rivalries intact until such time as the team succeeded so much that they were no longer a regional brand and became a national brand.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[closetohumping 17777]

3 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

Relegation?  Big 12 being a solid #3 isn't relegation by any stretch.  And I don't think you consider the disadvantages that ISU has compared to Texas who is a flagship university in the most talent rich state in the country and zero excuses to not be Top 5 every year given its resources and advantages.   Not knocking on Texas other then the fact that they haven't achieved/overachieved as much as I would have liked to have seen them do except for a few years.  A thriving Texas would be great for college football.  

You can thank USC for this.  

[Josef Pwag 1884]

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

What I give a fuck about is finally being in a conference with peer programs instead of sticking out as the Goliath lightning rod for a conference full of Davids looking for somebody to hate and blame for all their problems and circle as their Super Bowl. 

Amen

[BrazilHorn 6792]

One thing lost in all the realignment talk here is that football is not the only sport that is being realigned. The baseball in the SEC is going to be absolutely sick.

The BIg 12 outside of Texas & OU in terms of CWS appearances (talking current Big 12) has Ok State with 20 and then 15 more spread across Baylor, ISU, TT, TCU & Kansas.

There is 1 CWS Championship for OSU. Looking at who Big 12 is adding you get 2 appearances for BYU, 2 for Houston and that is it.

Looking at SEC (including Texas & OU) you have 161 CWS appearances and 23 Championships. 10 different teams have won the CWS.

Even Taking Texas & OU out you have 112 appearances and 15 championships with 8 different schools winning one.

I know it is a football board but Al seems to be ignoring the fact that it is not just football standing to see a massive improvement in quality of play.

There really is only one truly shitty SEC baseball team historically and that is Kentucky (and funnily enough they are currently in Top 25).

I am as excited for the baseball schedule as I am for the football one.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

4 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I'm actually a fan of your proposal, to a point.  The upside is, as you point out, a joint media contract.   The fragmentation of college football is degrading the earning potential of everyone, including the blue bloods.   If 48-72 schools evaporated conferences and went to market with shared rights they'd control the narrative in a way that makes the current B1G deal look like pocket change.   The problem prior to 1984 was they had all the games but didn't do anything with them.   Flip that script and there are additional billions that are being left on the table.

That being said, I think your proposal is too deep and relies too much on 3-4 out of conference games to generate interest.   To maximize revenue, you need:

• brand names playing
• close competitive games with something on the line
• regional meaning

That's really what brings value in a TV contract and I don't think you can do it with 72 teams on an even playing field any more because the brands don't play enough or until the end of the season.   To do it you'd need to go EPL on this bitch by taking your 72 teams and breaking it into three leagues with relegation and promotion.   This means the top brands will always likely be in the top bracket, making broadcasters mint weekly, R/P battles increase ratings by giving multiple things to play for, and a combined contract can fracture or mirror broadcasts so that ABC, for instance, can maximize eyeballs like they do the NFL by having a game only on TV in the area its being played, but then being streamed nationally.

How that would break out with teams and geography isn't something i feel like playing with, but it would maximize revenue and keep geographic rivalries intact until such time as the team succeeded so much that they were no longer a regional brand and became a national brand.

That’s not a bad idea either, but seems overly complex.

In the current system, there’s almost a disincentive to play big time non-conference games.  In a system where playoff access is based squarely on winning a division, there’s no risk in playing (and losing) marquee games with that open portion.

At the end of the day I just want to see the game return to a regional base, with a diverse national group of schools.

Apparently, to some, that’s a horrifying suggestion born from leech hood and the fact that my alma mater isn’t a blue blood and I need to just shut up and know my lowly place in this beacon of human brilliance and achievement.

[Trojan Man 429]

14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I understand blue bloods wanting more meaningful games, and I think my pipe dream proposal addresses that.

No matter what conference one plays, there are going to be games against schools that aren’t peer schools (unless some 12 team all blue blood thing materializes).  Getting rid of conferences altogether and having a divisional schedule to set up a playoff where TV money is distributed on a viewership basis seems like it would give everyone what they are seeking, but I guess I underestimated the overall butthurt that many have about playing their lesser games on a geographic basis.

I don't have a problem with playing some snoozer conference games.  Not every Saturday has to be the Game of the Century of the Decade of the Year of the Week.  Getting a breather against Northwestern in between games against Michigan and Wisconsin will be important.  The problem is the Pac 12 has way too many Northwestern-type games and not enough Michigan/Wisconsin-type games.  That's why I'd rather play shitty B1G teams instead of shitty Pac 12 teams.  The shitty B1G teams are bundled with good B1G teams, the shitty Pac 12 teams are bundled with more shitty Pac 12 teams.  Also, this isn't a strictly on-field issue.  Peer programs tend to vote in similar ways and share similar priorities.  In the Pac 12 that meant USC and sometimes UCLA getting fucked over in votes by the Davids who got too big for their britches and mistakenly thought the LA schools were trapped with them forever.  The B1G's Davids are kept in line by Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.

Also, for the umpteenth time, my dream conference would have been original Big 12 plus USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington.  Swap Baylor for BYU if you want your religious school to be less rapey and available to host late night kickoffs.  Joining the B1G is making the best out of the hand that was dealt, not the Western super conference I would have constructed if I was running the casino.

[closetohumping 17777]

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

Maybe hearing the perspective of a fan whose school is in a similar situation as Texas but has zero bad blood with the Big 12 (besides kneecapping Oklahoma's program, lol) will help remove some of the emotion from it.  It's fun to have those kinds of bitter games when the hatred is mutual; it's not so fun when you view it as just another game while all of the bitterness and hatred comes from the other side.  Texas will still have their mutual hatred games in the SEC with Oklahoma and A&M.  USC will still play UCLA in the B1G, plus Notre Dame isn't leaving the schedule.  I'm still getting my fix of the teams I love to hate after USC leaves the Pac 12.  People like to joke about USC soon playing conference games against Rutgers and Maryland...but for USC fans it isn't that different from conference games against teams like Colorado and Washington State we already didn't give a fuck about.

What I give a fuck about is finally being in a conference with peer programs instead of sticking out as the Goliath lightning rod for a conference full of Davids looking for somebody to hate and blame for all their problems and circle as their Super Bowl.  Swapping games against Pac 12 teams I don't care about playing for games against B1G teams I won't care about playing is an acceptable tradeoff to get what I want.  If the left behind Pac 12 teams are upset they're losing a bitter regional hatred game where 95% of the bitter hatred comes from their side, that's their problem.  It's also a failure on their part to consider how the departing team's fans view realignment because like I said USC will continue playing the teams our fanbase actually does hate.

Only one side of this equation is bemoaning the loss of regional hatred because only one side ever had those feelings in the first place.  For example, USC has much bigger goals than winning dogfights in front of 30K people at Oregon State while a top 10 list of best ever Oregon State football moments would include multiple upsets over USC.  In every single way except travel and questionable definitions of regional hatred it's more beneficial for USC to drop Oregon State and replace them with Ohio State.  USC beats Ohio State?  It's the story of the week, the entire country watched, it's a nice feather in the cap for recruiting.  USC beats Oregon State?  Nobody even noticed because it was a Pac 12 After Dark kickoff on the Pac 12 Network.  USC loses to Ohio State?  Quality loss, you only drop 3 spots in the rankings and your season isn't over.  USC loses to Oregon State?  The season is totally fucked, that loss is a scarlet letter and you plummet double digits in the rankings.  It's also the story of the week so have fun seeing the highlights during pregame and halftime of any other game you watch.  Ohio State comes to the Coliseum?  Huge event, crowd will be over-capacity, if you can't attend reselling your tickets will pay for your season tickets.  Oregon State comes to the Coliseum?  Zzz, that's the kind of game they make you buy in a bundle if you want to also get tickets against Notre Dame or UCLA.  Ohio State helps make more money for USC, Oregon State's athletic department lives on welfare checks taken out of USC's revenue.  I'm not compelled to give up all those benefits of leaving the Pac 12 for the B1G because people who aren't USC fans don't like that USC will no longer play other West Coast teams.

Well said. And while I don't have any hatred towards LSU, UF, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, Bama, etc, I am very much looking forward to playing them.  ou was the only school I looked forward to playing in any sport in the big 12.

[closetohumping 17777]

40 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I understand blue bloods wanting more meaningful games, and I think my pipe dream proposal addresses that.

No matter what conference one plays, there are going to be games against schools that aren’t peer schools (unless some 12 team all blue blood thing materializes).  Getting rid of conferences altogether and having a divisional schedule to set up a playoff where TV money is distributed on a viewership basis seems like it would give everyone what they are seeking, but I guess I underestimated the overall butthurt that many have about playing their lesser games on a geographic basis.

LOL.  Me breaking up with someone and saying "peace, I don't want anything to do with you, no lunch dates, etc." doesn't mean  I'm butthurt.  We're just done.  The other side, clinging  with "hey, we've been together for 20 years, man there were some great games, plus I only live 5 miles from you" reeks of desperation.  If we wanted to play you guys we wouldn't have left

12 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

I don't have a problem with playing some snoozer conference games.  Not every Saturday has to be the Game of the Century of the Decade of the Year of the Week.  Getting a breather against Northwestern in between games against Michigan and Wisconsin will be important.  The problem is the Pac 12 has way too many Northwestern-type games and not enough Michigan/Wisconsin-type games.  That's why I'd rather play shitty B1G teams instead of shitty Pac 12 teams.  The shitty B1G teams are bundled with good B1G teams, the shitty Pac 12 teams are bundled with more shitty Pac 12 teams.  Also, this isn't a strictly on-field issue.  Peer programs tend to vote in similar ways and share similar priorities.  In the Pac 12 that meant USC and sometimes UCLA getting fucked over in votes by the Davids who got too big for their britches and mistakenly thought the LA schools were trapped with them forever.  The B1G's Davids are kept in line by Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.

Also, for the umpteenth time, my dream conference would have been original Big 12 plus USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington.  Swap Baylor for BYU if you want your religious school to be less rapey and available to host late night kickoffs.  Joining the B1G is making the best out of the hand that was dealt, not the Western super conference I would have constructed if I was running the casino.

Careful, Northwestern ain't always a breather. 😎

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

7 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

I don't have a problem with playing some snoozer conference games.  Not every Saturday has to be the Game of the Century of the Decade of the Year of the Week.  Getting a breather against Northwestern in between games against Michigan and Wisconsin will be important.  The problem is the Pac 12 has way too many Northwestern-type games and not enough Michigan/Wisconsin-type games.  That's why I'd rather play shitty B1G teams instead of shitty Pac 12 teams.  The shitty B1G teams are bundled with good B1G teams, the shitty Pac 12 teams are bundled with more shitty Pac 12 teams.  Also, this isn't a strictly on-field issue.  Peer programs tend to vote in similar ways and share similar priorities.  In the Pac 12 that meant USC and sometimes UCLA getting fucked over in votes by the Davids who got too big for their britches and mistakenly thought the LA schools were trapped with them forever.  The B1G's Davids are kept in line by Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.

Also, for the umpteenth time, my dream conference would have been original Big 12 plus USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington.  Swap Baylor for BYU if you want your religious school to be less rapey and available to host late night kickoffs.  Joining the B1G is making the best out of the hand that was dealt, not the Western super conference I would have constructed if I was running the casino.

Yeah, I’m not taking shots at any of the schools for joining the Big 10 and SEC.

I’m arguing that national conferences (and conferences in general) are dumb and there’s a way to return the game to a regional basis, give blue bloods the amount of marquee games they crave, and possibly make even more money.

[Royale with cheese 1491]

12 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I don’t know why the discussion can’t remain civil. We don’t want to play Big 12 teams anymore, and I doubt any of y’all want to force us into a game or series.

Good luck. I’ll continue to watch Big 12 games because I’m a junkie. 

 

[closetohumping 17777]

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s not a bad idea either, but seems overly complex.

In the current system, there’s almost a disincentive to play big time non-conference games.  In a system where playoff access is based squarely on winning a division, there’s no risk in playing (and losing) marquee games with that open portion.

At the end of the day I just want to see the game return to a regional base, with a diverse national group of schools.

Apparently, to some, that’s a horrifying suggestion born from leech hood and the fact that my alma mater isn’t a blue blood and I need to just shut up and know my lowly place in this beacon of human brilliance and achievement.

What do you mean?  You guys landed in the #3 conference.  Congrats.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

2 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

What do you mean?  You guys landed in the #3 conference.  Congrats.

And it’s spread across the whole fucking country.

In the context of how things are, I’m quite happy with the arrangement.

This, however, started with a discussion of how things should be, and I offered an idea of what I think would be a better arrangement, and I’d wager the majority of college football fans would prefer such an arrangement, despite the outright disgust expressed in this little corner of the internet.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

26 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Also, for the umpteenth time, my dream conference would have been original Big 12 plus USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington.  Swap Baylor for BYU if you want your religious school to be less rapey and available to host late night kickoffs.  Joining the B1G is making the best out of the hand that was dealt, not the Western super conference I would have constructed if I was running the casino.

When the B12 formed they were talking about going west into New Mexico, which seems silly today, but would that have worked with USC/UCLA/Arizona/ASU too?

[Josef Pwag 1884]

15 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I’m arguing that national conferences (and conferences in general) are dumb and there’s a way to return the game to a regional basis

My dude, you have to get past Bargaining and move into Depression.

[Royale with cheese 1491]

3 hours ago, Josef Pwag said:

Things have changed. Only 2 conferences matter now, and you aren't in either. You are dismissed. 

 

[Royale with cheese 1491]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Back on topic, this seems like a bit of a "holy shit" moment. It's almost as if they see enough certainty that they'll be MWC soon and making peanuts compared to their tenure in the PAC.  

 

[statsman 5675]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My pipe dream is getting rid of the entire idea of conferences altogether.  It's just D1 football with geographic divisions that feed playoffs.  That's it.  Rankings wouldn't matter, perception wouldn't matter.  Win and you're in.  Revenues would be distributed on some ratings basis so you wouldn't have leeches and cows.  The schools that bring eyeballs get paid more than the ones who don't - straight up.  You also have 4 open dates to play all of these other interesting programs every year while having enough likely wins on the schedule to stay competitive.

There are going to be a lot of Big 10 games that end up boring the shit out of you.  Why play those boring games on the other side of the country?

In this proposed model, all the complaints about conference jealousy and infighting become moot.  Your school can associate with whomever the fuck it wants to you for whatever fucking reason.  But the sports would make sense.  As a fan of a David school, I don't need a Goliath in my life.  I want to play against schools that are close to mine, similar to mine, and who's fans I will casually interact with.  There really isn't a Goliath (Nebraska once was, but those days are long gone) that meets those criteria.

OK, play regional schools SIU Salukis, Miami RedHawks, Youngstown St. All solid programs, all in your region. I bet all of them feel they deserve to be in your class. 

[Vertigo 20461]

2 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Maybe hearing the perspective of a fan whose school is in a similar situation as Texas but has zero bad blood with the Big 12 (besides kneecapping Oklahoma's program, lol) will help remove some of the emotion from it.  It's fun to have those kinds of bitter games when the hatred is mutual; it's not so fun when you view it as just another game while all of the bitterness and hatred comes from the other side.  Texas will still have their mutual hatred games in the SEC with Oklahoma and A&M.  USC will still play UCLA in the B1G, plus Notre Dame isn't leaving the schedule.  I'm still getting my fix of the teams I love to hate after USC leaves the Pac 12.  People like to joke about USC soon playing conference games against Rutgers and Maryland...but for USC fans it isn't that different from conference games against teams like Colorado and Washington State we already didn't give a fuck about.

What I give a fuck about is finally being in a conference with peer programs instead of sticking out as the Goliath lightning rod for a conference full of Davids looking for somebody to hate and blame for all their problems and circle as their Super Bowl.  Swapping games against Pac 12 teams I don't care about playing for games against B1G teams I won't care about playing is an acceptable tradeoff to get what I want.  If the left behind Pac 12 teams are upset they're losing a bitter regional hatred game where 95% of the bitter hatred comes from their side, that's their problem.  It's also a failure on their part to consider how the departing team's fans view realignment because like I said USC will continue playing the teams our fanbase actually does hate.

Only one side of this equation is bemoaning the loss of regional hatred because only one side ever had those feelings in the first place.  For example, USC has much bigger goals than winning dogfights in front of 30K people at Oregon State while a top 10 list of best ever Oregon State football moments would include multiple upsets over USC.  In every single way except travel and questionable definitions of regional hatred it's more beneficial for USC to drop Oregon State and replace them with Ohio State.  USC beats Ohio State?  It's the story of the week, the entire country watched, it's a nice feather in the cap for recruiting.  USC beats Oregon State?  Nobody even noticed because it was a Pac 12 After Dark kickoff on the Pac 12 Network.  USC loses to Ohio State?  Quality loss, you only drop 3 spots in the rankings and your season isn't over.  USC loses to Oregon State?  The season is totally fucked, that loss is a scarlet letter and you plummet double digits in the rankings.  It's also the story of the week so have fun seeing the highlights during pregame and halftime of any other game you watch.  Ohio State comes to the Coliseum?  Huge event, crowd will be over-capacity, if you can't attend reselling your tickets will pay for your season tickets.  Oregon State comes to the Coliseum?  Zzz, that's the kind of game they make you buy in a bundle if you want to also get tickets against Notre Dame or UCLA.  Ohio State helps make more money for USC, Oregon State's athletic department lives on welfare checks taken out of USC's revenue.  I'm not compelled to give up all those benefits of leaving the Pac 12 for the B1G because people who aren't USC fans don't like that USC will no longer play other West Coast teams.

Spot fucking on. I cannot tell you how tired I am for getting dragged by schools like Kansas State for losing a game in literally any sport to them. It's always the same bullshit and it comes from their fans, their media people, and even their admins. They hate us with a passion, we don't care about them. They spend the entire summer scheming us up in games, we don't think about them until game week. When they do beat us it's nothing but "See? Texas has all these resources and we still beat them. We would be giants and the best schools evaar if we had their resources. Their fans are so arrogant and entitled and still they can't beat us. Blah blah blah" 

Here is the reality: When every team on your schedule spends their summers scheming you up in games because they all want the badge of honor of beating you. When your coaches go around all year claiming "We beat Texas 5 times in the last decade!" in recruiting while we have been down. When every school in the conference bands together and negative recruits the shit out of us on the recruiting trail. When even the officials are on record as hating us at times, all in a desperate attempt at keeping us down, it gets tiresome. When every player on their roster is circling the game because they are pissed we didnt recruit them and are determined to put in the performance of their lives, sure all of that it is going to result in losses. These smaller schools truly can't conceive of what it is like to be the biggest game on everyone's schedule, every season, for 20+ years. We have the same problems every other program does. Bad evaluations, bad coaching hires, off field incidents, etc. But when we have them every opposing fan, media person, and even administrator piles on about money. Just shut the fuck up already. 

You know who won't spend the summer locked in a room trying to figure out every way they possibly can to beat us? Bama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, etc. Why? Because they have as many fish to fry as we do. Sure we spend extra time on schools like Bama and OU and aggy. Those are the rivals and big games we care about. But when Joey Maguire or Dana Holgersen or Matt Campbell are seething in their offices for months turning over every rock, calling other coaches to collaborate, and saving half their playbook for our game, it is in no way reciprocated. They all know what happens when we get back up. My sincere hope is that we give every one of these schools the ass kicking of their lives in a going away present to remember this season. 

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

OK, play regional schools SIU Salukis, Miami RedHawks, Youngstown St. All solid programs, all in your region. I bet all of them feel they deserve to be in your class. 

Youngstown is farther from Ames than Dallas is.

[statsman 5675]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s not a bad idea either, but seems overly complex.

In the current system, there’s almost a disincentive to play big time non-conference games.  In a system where playoff access is based squarely on winning a division, there’s no risk in playing (and losing) marquee games with that open portion.

I want to address this comment, while recognizing your program regularly plays the B12’s third toughest non-conference schedule (annual game with Iowa), soon to be toughest. 
 
Why do you suppose Texas, even when down, regularly plays non-conference games against marquee programs?

Why do you suppose most of the rest of the B12 doesn’t?

 
Could it be money? Exposure? Misunderstanding risk and opportunities?

No. I’ve thought about it and think it is this simple. The other B12 schools are afraid of losing those games, and what it will do to their season and their program. 
Texas isn’t afraid of losing those games and what losing them will do to our season and program. 
 
That’s why “We’re Texas” means something. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by statsman

[statsman 5675]

20 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Youngstown is farther from Ames than Dallas is.

(I really have no idea where exactly any of you are)

[closetohumping 17777]

42 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Spot fucking on. I cannot tell you how tired I am for getting dragged by schools like Kansas State for losing a game in literally any sport to them. It's always the same bullshit and it comes from their fans, their media people, and even their admins. They hate us with a passion, we don't care about them. They spend the entire summer scheming us up in games, we don't think about them until game week. When they do beat us it's nothing but "See? Texas has all these resources and we still beat them. We would be giants and the best schools evaar if we had their resources. Their fans are so arrogant and entitled and still they can't beat us. Blah blah blah" 

Here is the reality: When every team on your schedule spends their summers scheming you up in games because they all want the badge of honor of beating you. When your coaches go around all year claiming "We beat Texas 5 times in the last decade!" in recruiting while we have been down. When every school in the conference bands together and negative recruits the shit out of us on the recruiting trail. When even the officials are on record as hating us at times, all in a desperate attempt at keeping us down, it gets tiresome. When every player on their roster is circling the game because they are pissed we didnt recruit them and are determined to put in the performance of their lives, sure all of that it is going to result in losses. These smaller schools truly can't conceive of what it is like to be the biggest game on everyone's schedule, every season, for 20+ years. We have the same problems every other program does. Bad evaluations, bad coaching hires, off field incidents, etc. But when we have them every opposing fan, media person, and even administrator piles on about money. Just shut the fuck up already. 

You know who won't spend the summer locked in a room trying to figure out every way they possibly can to beat us? Bama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, etc. Why? Because they have as many fish to fry as we do. Sure we spend extra time on schools like Bama and OU and aggy. Those are the rivals and big games we care about. But when Joey Maguire or Dana Holgersen or Matt Campbell are seething in their offices for months turning over every rock, calling other coaches to collaborate, and saving half their playbook for our game, it is in no way reciprocated. They all know what happens when we get back up. My sincere hope is that we give every one of these schools the ass kicking of their lives in a going away present to remember this season. 

I'd bet quite a few of them share notes.  I know a couple of them hosed us in 2008.  

 

I can't wait to just be "one of the boys" although I know we will still be that game a lot of teams circle.

Edited May 23, 2023 by closetohumping

[Richard Kimball 1517]

3 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

Texas' historic conference rivals/members are Rice, SMU, Arkansas, A&M, SMU, Baylor, and TCU.

"You said SMU twice."

"I like SMU."

 

[Mason Ramsey 3503]

33 minutes ago, statsman said:

I want to address this comment, while recognizing your program regularly plays the B12’s third toughest non-conference schedule (annual game with Iowa), soon to be toughest. 
 
Why do you suppose Texas, even when down, regularly plays non-conference games against marquee programs?

Why do you suppose most of the rest of the B12 doesn’t?

 
Could it be money? Exposure? Misunderstanding risk and opportunities?

No. I’ve thought about it and think it is this simple. The other B12 schools are afraid of losing those games, and what it will do to their season and their program. 
Texas isn’t afraid of losing those games and what losing them will do to our season and program. 
 
That’s why “We’re Texas” means something. 

I think the other side of it is that those marquee programs look at these other B12 schools, laugh, and say, "Playing you does us no good. Win and it doesn't help our SOS. Lose and it makes us look bad. You aren't going to sell our our stadium or bring us in a big bag of money for coming to town either, so why bother?"

[bullet 1627]

8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Right - lack of big games, which I cited as a valid reason to leave, and my proposed change to CFB would fix 

Which is why that 8x9 70s era (and not really-a bunch of schools got moved around in the post) didn't work.  I liked the old Big 12 and national setup circa 2010.

The Big 12 was a pretty exciting move in 1996, even though it was sad to see the SWC go.  I liked divisions and I liked CCGs.  Except for BC in the ACC, everybody fit.  Maybe you could go back to 2004 before BC moved.

Big 12-CU, KU, KSU, ISU, NU, MU; UT, OU, OSU, TT, BU, A&M

SEC-AR, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, AL; UK, TN, Vandy, UGa, UF, USCe

Big 10-IA, WI, MN, NW, IL, PU; IU, MSU, tOSU, UM, PSU, add Rutgers for 12

ACC-FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, WF, NCSU; UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, MD, add Louisville for 12

Pac 10-UW, WSU, OR, ORSt., Cal, Stanford; USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU, add Utah and BYU for 12 (or maybe we allow a CU for window Cougs trade)

Big East-C7, BC, SU, Pitt, WVU, UConn, Temple; Cincinnati, USF, add later additions-TCU, UCF, UH, Memphis and get a scheduling deal with ND like the ACC has.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

There are going to be a lot of Big 10 games that end up boring the shit out of you.  Why play those boring games on the other side of the country?

 I want to play against schools that are close to mine, similar to mine, and who's fans I will casually interact with.  

Trojan Man explained it well, but since your cognitive dissonance is seemingly impenetrable, I'll take another shot.

Your worldview revolves around playing schools that are close to your school and similar to your school.  We get it.

Understand this: UT and USC want to play schools that are similar to our schools.  Those schools are named UGA, tOSU, UM, Bama, ND, LSU, etc.

UT's most important rival is in another state.  

USC's only true rival is in the Midwest.  (UCLA is an annoying little brother.)  We've been traveling across the country to play for almost 100 years.

UT and USC folks don't give a fuck about the schools that are close to us because we want to compete against the best.

We'll happily trade unexciting matchups in the B12/PAC (that make up the majority of the schedule) to play unexciting schools in the BIG/SEC (that make up a smaller part of the schedule) because we get to play other bluebloods and near bluebloods.  Games that we will be excited for and that will be memorable.

When you're sitting on your tractor making a list of divisions that looks almost exactly like the way things were 50 years ago and acting like it would be some kind of CFB nirvana, you're only looking at it from your point of view.  You somehow can't understand that your pov is very different from the pov of someone who has seen his team win multiple National Titles  and lives less than 20 minutes from an airport that has nonstop flights to any road destination that we would want to visit.  

//

Short version- for USC and UT, we don't care about travel because we're going to be playing more schools that are our peers, and we don't care about playing schools that are closer to us because we have never cared about playing them.  

We're going to have more games that are exciting to watch, make more money, and have better exposure for recruiting.  It would be crazy not make the BIG/SEC move.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

10 minutes ago, bullet said:

Which is why that 8x9 70s era (and not really-a bunch of schools got moved around in the post) didn't work.  I liked the old Big 12 and national setup circa 2010.

The Big 12 was a pretty exciting move in 1996, even though it was sad to see the SWC go.  I liked divisions and I liked CCGs.  Except for BC in the ACC, everybody fit.  Maybe you could go back to 2004 before BC moved.

Big 12-CU, KU, KSU, ISU, NU, MU; UT, OU, OSU, TT, BU, A&M

SEC-AR, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, AL; UK, TN, Vandy, UGa, UF, USCe

Big 10-IA, WI, MN, NW, IL, PU; IU, MSU, tOSU, UM, PSU, add Rutgers for 12

ACC-FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, WF, NCSU; UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, MD, add Louisville for 12

Pac 10-UW, WSU, OR, ORSt., Cal, Stanford; USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU, add Utah and BYU for 12 (or maybe we allow a CU for window Cougs trade)

Big East-C7, BC, SU, Pitt, WVU, UConn, Temple; Cincinnati, USF, add later additions-TCU, UCF, UH, Memphis and get a scheduling deal with ND like the ACC has.

 

A big reason you had fewer marquee games then was the need to be undefeated or have one loss to be crowned champions.  My idea eliminates that.

Also, you would have one massive collective bargaining agreement, not 8 provincial ones.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

8 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Trojan Man explained it well, but since your cognitive dissonance is seemingly impenetrable, I'll take another shot.

Your worldview revolves around playing schools that are close to your school and similar to your school.  We get it.

Understand this: UT and USC want to play schools that are similar to our schools.  Those schools are named UGA, tOSU, UM, Bama, ND, LSU, etc.

UT's most important rival is in another state.  

USC's only true rival is in the Midwest.  (UCLA is an annoying little brother.)  We've been traveling across the country to play for almost 100 years.

UT and USC folks don't give a fuck about the schools that are close to us because we want to compete against the best.

We'll happily trade unexciting matchups in the B12/PAC (that make up the majority of the schedule) to play unexciting schools in the BIG/SEC (that make up a smaller part of the schedule) because we get to play other bluebloods and near bluebloods.  Games that we will be excited for and that will be memorable.

When you're sitting on your tractor making a list of divisions that looks almost exactly like the way things were 50 years ago and acting like it would be some kind of CFB nirvana, you're only looking at it from your point of view.  You somehow can't understand that your pov is very different from the pov of someone who has seen his team win multiple National Titles  and lives less than 20 minutes from an airport that has nonstop flights to any road destination that we would want to visit.  

//

Short version- for USC and UT, we don't care about travel because we're going to be playing more schools that are our peers, and we don't care about playing schools that are closer to us because we have never cared about playing them.  

We're going to have more games that are exciting to watch, make more money, and have better exposure for recruiting.  It would be crazy not make the BIG/SEC move.

I would love nothing more than for USC, UT, OU, Bama, LSU, ND, tOSU, Michigan, Pedo, UGA, Tennessee, Florida, Florida State, and Clemson to just go be their own division.

Now THAT would make everyone happy, no?

[bullet 1627]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Oh yay, back to this stuff for the fortieth time. The one thing I observed while living in Texas is that there really does appear to be animosity among Texas universities at the administrative level and not just the fans. I don't know much about the PUF but it sounds like a real issue, although I still don't think it should matter to sports rivalries. Fuck Baylor, I think everyone can agree that they should have lost their right to play high level sports (or sports at all) through the basketball murder and rape culture scandals. I get that a bunch of you hate us for some poorly officiated games, same as rape culture I guess. 

It seems silly though for such a large economically powerful state to have true hatred at the administrative level among its major universities (although with aggy it might be unavoidable because of their ridiculous fake army culture). Do the Cal and Cal State systems have the same dynamic? I honestly have no idea, so maybe it's normal. OU and OSU get along at an administrative level, but maybe its because we're a small state and cooperation is necessary to have any semblance of competitiveness in the economy. We have enough holding us back, don't need university fights making it worse.

None of this matters. Al's post was realignment pron that all of us have been participating in for over a decade. It's how things should be but we all know will never in a million years happen. Peak offseason I guess. BIG and SEC get all the money, XII will get good money and be a competitive conference, ACC screwed themselves financially for the next decade, and the PAC is a shell and likely done for, all we're waiting on is for it to finally happen. I'm hyped currently for the Big XII baseball tourney.

I think Cal vs. Cal St. has that issue.  But not within the Cal and Cal St. systems.

We have a screwed up system in Texas.  They made a real mistake in the 30s giving A&M their own system.  Then they repeat it allowing Texas Tech and Houston and North Texas to have their own systems.  The Texas State system has its role and mostly understands it.  The others are all empire building and not working in the interest of the state.  I've always had a little bit of an issue with the Longhorn administration emphasizing the "at Austin" more than the "Texas."  But the system as a whole works for Texas.  The aggy system, Cougar high system, Tech system and UNT system work for their main universities and not even for the rest of their system, let alone the city or state.

[Crockett 517]

13 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Trojan Man explained it well, but since your cognitive dissonance is seemingly impenetrable, I'll take another shot.

Your worldview revolves around playing schools that are close to your school and similar to your school.  We get it.

Understand this: UT and USC want to play schools that are similar to our schools.  Those schools are named UGA, tOSU, UM, Bama, ND, LSU, etc.

UT's most important rival is in another state.  

USC's only true rival is in the Midwest.  (UCLA is an annoying little brother.)  We've been traveling across the country to play for almost 100 years.

UT and USC folks don't give a fuck about the schools that are close to us because we want to compete against the best.

We'll happily trade unexciting matchups in the B12/PAC (that make up the majority of the schedule) to play unexciting schools in the BIG/SEC (that make up a smaller part of the schedule) because we get to play other bluebloods and near bluebloods.  Games that we will be excited for and that will be memorable.

When you're sitting on your tractor making a list of divisions that looks almost exactly like the way things were 50 years ago and acting like it would be some kind of CFB nirvana, you're only looking at it from your point of view.  You somehow can't understand that your pov is very different from the pov of someone who has seen his team win multiple National Titles  and lives less than 20 minutes from an airport that has nonstop flights to any road destination that we would want to visit.  

//

Short version- for USC and UT, we don't care about travel because we're going to be playing more schools that are our peers, and we don't care about playing schools that are closer to us because we have never cared about playing them.  

We're going to have more games that are exciting to watch, make more money, and have better exposure for recruiting.  It would be crazy not make the BIG/SEC move.

Did you feel this way before the expansion to a 12 team playoff? More big time matchups could mean more losses, but getting into the playoff will be a bit easier now, so that dynamic has changed. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Crockett

[LTbear 4209]

I think it was a different website where someone said "conference realignment drama is like the Kardashians for middle-aged men." Spot on. 

[Magus Ossis 2997]

Iowa State is not going back to playing teams like Grinnell or Simpson as they did in their early years. Why? There is no butthurt. Iowa State does not care about those teams. They are not suitable candidates to compete against a team like ISU for a championship. They don't bring much fan interest or revenue. They are yesterday's news to ISU. ISU has everything to lose and nothing to gain by playing them. ISU would be upset if someone dumped them in a division of 'purist' CFB with those regional and historical 'rivals.'

Everybody has his own definition of who matters enough to be in the club, and a great many people think they are one of those who matter. There are not 72 serious contenders for the CFB national crown. The last team outside the new P2 and not named Miami, FSU, ND, or Clemson (aka the candidates already named as potentially ripe for taking by P2) to win a championship was Washington, who shared the title over 30 years ago, before Leach ever coordinated an offense or most Americans had heard of the internet.

A nationwide 'purist' CFB consortium sounds great for people who don't want to watch a lot of blue blooded, red-faced, hate-inspired, championship-implications, etc type football. Great. Make the league and good luck against Grinnell. The system, for better or worse, has evolved from what some people seem to want (loose regional divisions) to what we are witnessing. Teams don't play high schools or city teams any more, and I am glad. I would rather see more games against Bama, UGA, LSU, OU, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn, and the like.

If other teams "left behind" disagree with the logic, they are welcome to structure their next conference without using the criteria Texas, USC, OU, and UCLA have employed. My suspicion, though, is that they will do the exact same thing. They will decline to fill their schedule with teams in their backyards and instead play games that, on balance, look more exciting, more challenging, more lucrative, and less strictly 'regional.' Because it makes sense.

[statsman 5675]

There is always discussion of the P3-5 conferences adding schools, and there is no shortage of g5 schools wanting to make the jump. I wonder what would happen if the networks said to Oregon, UW, ASU, UA, Colorado, TT, FSU, Clemson, UVA, VT, Pitt, Miami, UNC, NCSU and Syracuse- “You know, in your current conferences, you get $30 M per year. If you can figure out how to ditch them and form one new conference, we’d pay you $50 M per year”. 

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

9 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

Iowa State is not going back to playing teams like Grinnell or Simpson as they did in their early years. Why? There is no butthurt. Iowa State does not care about those teams. They are not suitable candidates to compete against a team like ISU for a championship. They don't bring much fan interest or revenue. They are yesterday's news to ISU. ISU has everything to lose and nothing to gain by playing them. ISU would be upset if someone dumped them in a division of 'purist' CFB with those regional and historical 'rivals.'

Everybody has his own definition of who matters enough to be in the club, and a great many people think they are one of those who matter. There are not 72 serious contenders for the CFB national crown. The last team outside the new P2 and not named Miami, FSU, ND, or Clemson (aka the candidates already named as potentially ripe for taking by P2) to win a championship was Washington, who shared the title over 30 years ago, before Leach ever coordinated an offense or most Americans had heard of the internet.

A nationwide 'purist' CFB consortium sounds great for people who don't want to watch a lot of blue blooded, red-faced, hate-inspired, championship-implications, etc type football. Great. Make the league and good luck against Grinnell. The system, for better or worse, has evolved from what some people seem to want (loose regional divisions) to what we are witnessing. Teams don't play high schools or city teams any more, and I am glad. I would rather see more games against Bama, UGA, LSU, OU, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn, and the like.

If other teams "left behind" disagree with the logic, they are welcome to structure their next conference without using the criteria Texas, USC, OU, and UCLA have employed. My suspicion, though, is that they will do the exact same thing. They will decline to fill their schedule with teams in their backyards and instead play games that, on balance, look more exciting, more challenging, more lucrative, and less strictly 'regional.' Because it makes sense.

Yeah, lots of history with schools we played for a decade a century ago.

Like I said, if the blue bloods did their own super exclusive thing, I think that would be great.  Top 12-16 schools do their own thing and the next 50-60 schools can square off in a geographically logical arrangement with schools they’ve played a million times.

Everyone gets what they want.

[Satchel 6982]

10 hours ago, JFKFC said:

Like A&M did for Mizzou?

In what way is that the same thing? And why would you compare aggy to Texas? One is not like the other.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Satchel

[closetojumping 65245]

56 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Did you feel this way before the expansion to a 12 team playoff? More big time matchups could mean more losses, but getting into the playoff will be a bit easier now, so that dynamic has changed. 

Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State and very few other schools have always maintained a policy of being willing to play anyone, any time, and they continue to do so. None of those schools have had a FCS school on their program in a very long time outside a random occurrence that was a one-off in the first place. Texas had SHSU on theirs in 2007, the only one in 30 years, due to another school bailing on a game late in the process. 

Shame on OU, UCLA, the SEC, Michigan, the ACC, Nebraska, and other historically notable programs who have begun the practice of going after OOC cupcakes and FCS games. At least UCLA and OU held out until recently, I guess. 

Some of you guys don't seem to understand that fans of these kinds of schools don't fear losses and actually expect them as the cost of pursuing excellence, irrespective of whether that excellence can be maintained.

25 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, lots of history with schools we played for a decade a century ago.

Like I said, if the blue bloods did their own super exclusive thing, I think that would be great.  Top 12-16 schools do their own thing and the next 50-60 schools can square off in a geographically logical arrangement with schools they’ve played a million times.

Everyone gets what they want.

You ask us to consume this red herring on an all too frequent basis in this thread. No one is advocating for a 12-16 team league that just plays each other and would make everyone happy. Well, no one is doing that but you. It's a distraction to the conversation, it's absurd, and it is uninteresting.

The vast majority of readers and posters on this site are here because they love college sports. Many particularly love CFB. There are many flavors of playing in a better conference with teams all over the country having better OOC and in-conference schedules than the silly ass "go make yourself the NFL JR League and leave us plebes to enjoy the true spirit of college football among our purist selves." Get the fuck out of here with this continued trope. 

[bullet 1627]

1 hour ago, Richard Kimball said:

"You said SMU twice."

"I like SMU."

 

I'm glad TCU and UH got back into a major conference.  I feel bad for Rice, but then if they got in a major conference, they would never win.  As for SMU, they made their bed.

I didn't know anybody liked SMU.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

7 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State and very few other schools have always maintained a policy of being willing to play anyone, any time, and they continue to do so. None of those schools have had a FCS school on their program in a very long time outside a random occurrence that was a one-off in the first place. Texas had SHSU on theirs in 2007, the only one in 30 years, due to another school bailing on a game late in the process. 

Shame on OU, UCLA, the SEC, Michigan, the ACC, Nebraska, and other historically notable programs who have begun the practice of going after OOC cupcakes and FCS games. At least UCLA and OU held out until recently, I guess. 

Some of you guys don't seem to understand that fans of these kinds of schools don't fear losses and actually expect them as the cost of pursuing excellence, irrespective of whether that excellence can be maintained.

You ask us to consume this red herring on an all too frequent basis in this thread. No one is advocating for a 12-16 team league that just plays each other and would make everyone happy. Well, no one is doing that but you. It's a distraction to the conversation, it's absurd, and it is uninteresting.

The vast majority of readers and posters on this site are here because they love college sports. Many particularly love CFB. There are many flavors of playing in a better conference with teams all over the country having better OOC and in-conference schedules than the silly ass "go make yourself the NFL JR League and leave us plebes to enjoy the true spirit of college football among our purist selves." Get the fuck out of here with this continued trope. 

“We want to get out of here to play real schools!  Not you plebes!”

”Ok, cool, go do that”

”No that’s not what we mean you fucking moron”

All I can figure out about what you (you specifically) actually want is just to fuck over a handful of schools that you disdain for some very silly reasons.

I (and many other college fans) just want to see the game reach some of regional congruity with similarly situated schools playing each other.  You’re just on some fucking nonsensical tirade at this point, moving the goal posts with each new post.

[bullet 1627]

1 hour ago, Magus Ossis said:

Iowa State is not going back to playing teams like Grinnell or Simpson as they did in their early years. Why? There is no butthurt. Iowa State does not care about those teams. They are not suitable candidates to compete against a team like ISU for a championship. They don't bring much fan interest or revenue. They are yesterday's news to ISU. ISU has everything to lose and nothing to gain by playing them. ISU would be upset if someone dumped them in a division of 'purist' CFB with those regional and historical 'rivals.'

Everybody has his own definition of who matters enough to be in the club, and a great many people think they are one of those who matter. There are not 72 serious contenders for the CFB national crown. The last team outside the new P2 and not named Miami, FSU, ND, or Clemson (aka the candidates already named as potentially ripe for taking by P2) to win a championship was Washington, who shared the title over 30 years ago, before Leach ever coordinated an offense or most Americans had heard of the internet.

A nationwide 'purist' CFB consortium sounds great for people who don't want to watch a lot of blue blooded, red-faced, hate-inspired, championship-implications, etc type football. Great. Make the league and good luck against Grinnell. The system, for better or worse, has evolved from what some people seem to want (loose regional divisions) to what we are witnessing. Teams don't play high schools or city teams any more, and I am glad. I would rather see more games against Bama, UGA, LSU, OU, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn, and the like.

If other teams "left behind" disagree with the logic, they are welcome to structure their next conference without using the criteria Texas, USC, OU, and UCLA have employed. My suspicion, though, is that they will do the exact same thing. They will decline to fill their schedule with teams in their backyards and instead play games that, on balance, look more exciting, more challenging, more lucrative, and less strictly 'regional.' Because it makes sense.

There are about 20 teams who are contenders.  You can go all the way back to 1960 and the only teams outside the P2 to win an AP title are Miami, FSU, ND, Clemson; along with Colorado in '90, BYU in '84 and Pitt in '76.  Washington '91 and Georgia Tech '90 shared titles by winning the coaches poll.  For that matter, going back to TCU's 1938 title, the only other schools to win the AP were Syracuse in '59 and Army twice during WWII.

[Hagbard Celine 11158]

10 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Texas and Kentucky?  Texas and Ole Miss?  Texas and South Carolina?  Those are Big 12 games with zero regional hatred and mutual disdain.

cock/jelly/klan are home/away league games with state flagships that we previously had to schedule OOC if at all

oSu/rape/tceh are soon to be OOC games with non-flagships that we have no desire to schedule for reasons cited above

oSu/rape/tceh "regional hate" is also not bidirectional; they hate us, we're sick of them, and those are not the same thing

oSu/rape/tceh "mutual disdain" is also not bidirectional; "disdain" does not describe their attitudes towards us; we certainly feel disdain towards all 3 of them, and again the adjective does not describe how they feel about us, and therefore not mutual

NOTE: only sips are allowed to define how we interpret the feelings of others towards us, and only sips are allowed to define how we interpret our feelings towards others

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

8 minutes ago, bullet said:

There are about 20 teams who are contenders.  You can go all the way back to 1960 and the only teams outside the P2 to win an AP title are Miami, FSU, ND, Clemson; along with Colorado in '90, BYU in '84 and Pitt in '76.  Washington '91 and Georgia Tech '90 shared titles by winning the coaches poll.  For that matter, going back to TCU's 1938 title, the only other schools to win the AP were Syracuse in '59 and Army twice during WWII.

20 is generous 

[bullet 1627]

If the Big 10 were to take ND, UW, Oregon and Colorado and the SEC to take FSU, Clemson, Miami and say UNC, the P2 would have all but 2 of the AP titles going back to 1959, and all but 14 of the top 3 finishes going back to 1959.  And only Pitt and TCU would have more than 1 of those 14 top 3 finishes in the last 64 years.  9 other schools w have had 1.  So roughly once in 4-5 years a non P2 team would crack the top 3.

[Hagbard Celine 11158]

8 hours ago, Okie State said:

That is not why Texas is going to the SEC though. Fans don't make those decisions. Adults do.

Very rich alumni who give metricfucktons of money to The University make those decisions, and like the fans, adults, Belmont and The Tower, those cigars witnessed two Blood Eagle assrapings by the league's zebras, both in games against your school, for reasons that will probably never be made public.  Nevertheless, your guilt by association seems to have sealed your fate.

If 0u and Texas had felt so inclined, you and tceh would have been the baggage required for our signatures negating the aggy handshake agreement.

You will notice there was never any discussion or rumors to that effect.  The reasons as to why will also likely never be revealed.   Which means it is possible that we told 0u "we're going it alone, maybe north, maybe west, but without you no matter what, if you want to bring oSu."   Just speculating.