(08-13-2015 07:47 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 10:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 09:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 09:37 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I think UofL in the P5 and in particular the ACC offends certain people. I think it offends certain people because of what we may do. What we are aiming for and have on our horizon academically can be propelled by our athletics. It is right that multiple posters have brought this up.

Also, what I think a lot of G5 people are missing when they say, "It's all about the money!" when pointing to Louisville is that they then can't show how the money they're making is anywhere close to what Louisivlle was able to do (and once again, this was even with the terrible old Big East TV deals). Like I said in my prior post, Louisville was bringing in SERIOUS money BEFORE it got invited to the ACC (as opposed to a G5 school hoping to start making serious money only AFTER they get s P5 invite). Louisville was a top 25 revenue generator even without getting propped up by large conference revenues, so I don't agree that many (if any) G5 schools come even close to that standard.

Louisville has always had a P5 level budget.

15 years ago MAC schools had 13 million dollar budget and Louisville had a 30 million dollar budget, the same size as Virginia Tech and WVU at the time.

Louisville had a rivalry with Kentucky in basketball going back since time immortal. They were a power school in hoops. Louisville is also the site of the Kentucky Derby and the most important city in the state while Lexington is #2. There was a lot of money from outside the region due to horse racing and it led to deep pockets in basketball for both schools.

Louisville football was much slower to get going because the NCAA controlled broadcasts in football from the 50's to the early 80's so Louisville couldn't monetize its football program. Once the NCAA shackles were removed Louisville had broadcast potential in football.

Schnellenberger turned around the football team to the point they were a player to join a conference. They were left out of the Big East and ACC so they had to settle for CUSA and that's when the realization came they needed Papa John's stadium to get into a BCS conference.

UConn right now is in a position not unlike Louisville was 15 years ago with elite basketball but mediocre football. The AAC is a horrible conference for them with their basketball rivals mostly in the Big East and they need a power conference to recruit football players to a campus nestled in the mountains of New England. Going back to the Big East and independent in football would be a good move, IMO.

This is a very important convo, and I'm glad it has been engaged in to this point. Because I really don't think a lot of people see beyond the games to what the UofL is trying to do. Das & Frank touched upon it. But essentially, Louisville was stuck, they are a smallish but nice city stuck in a backwards-azz Country-f*#@ state. It is relatively small & poor, which means they never had much money to give to the school even under the best of circumstances.

UofL, in lieu of all the money the state didn't have to give them, were at least allowed to significantly tighten their entrance requirements. They worked for some years to raise their profile up to tier 1, albeit at the bottom edge of the old rankings around 165, which was about where WVU was when they both shared the BE together.

But UofL's problem is: how do they make a better future for themselves? They can't get money from a broke state, and after 2008, no one's really getting good public monies any longer anyway.

Well, they can fundraise-- do one of those 10 yr. = billion dollar drives. And at the end of ten years really splurge but it doesn't change their status because, frankly-- a bil. over a decade is chump change at that level & they are still stuck in Tom Thumb land academically....and athletically.

This is where UofL and all supporters in the state for the university & city really came thru, and hiring Tom Jurich (NO Tom Thumb it must be said) was a stroke of genius, and really a big part of a much larger long term goal. The goal is nothing less than changing the university's, and the city's, Destiny by changing their academic status THRU athletics.

You see, it's really not about the games, oh they are important, and with the hideous blew thangs crawling about the landscape Cards fans need some way to combat them. But primarily UofL's ascension to a P5, and a very good academic conference, was about ACADEMICS as the final goal.

Simple admission to this conference will not immediately instill a higher academic profile on the school, but over time it will because they are in the club, that meets in the cool marble halls, of the high, high ivory tower---and THAT is what UofL's ambition has been all along.

Yes the games are fun, but the growth of a truly good Academic & Research institution is Better. And we are seeing the beginnings of it already and it will continue. It's not easy, arguably the academic/research side of an institution is much more expensive and takes a great deal longer to pull off. But it is happening and has been since Louisville was invited to the ACC, in many ways not even readily obvious to us on the outside.

What the university, the city, Admins, the AD for sure, and even McConnell in DC pulled off has been an Immense Coup, and absolutely Brilliant...

Houston's president claimed UH couldn't get much higher academically without higher profile athletics. Now this was as a speech to push season ticket sales and athletic donations.

(08-13-2015 05:46 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Back to the original question, I think that there are several distinctions to be made. First of all, there's a difference between what someone thinks will happen versus what they think should happen. If an opinion is offered on the former, that doesn't necessarily reflect the poster's preferences so much as their opinion.

If you consider the athletic v academic balance, I suspect that the answer is often more complicated than just one or the other. Geography, markets, cultural fit, and other factors probably often factor into someone's opinion as to what the best fits may be. Just as someone may essentially overlook ethical considerations in politics when it applies to a candidate from his party while applying strict standards to the other party's candidates, someone who may favor a school for other reasons may be more prone to highlight a shortcoming in another candidate in terms of either athletics or academics, even if that was just one factor to consider. It probably also depends on the conference in question - the B1G may not insist on 100% academic excellence, but they can certainly afford to be pickier than the Big 12, for instance. I do think there's also truth to the notion that schools would prefer to associate with schools of similar or higher academic pedigrees - yes, an athletic conference is separate from an academic consortium, but at the same time just as business gets done at the country club, social interaction plays a role in making academic associations, and football games are a great place for people to come together.

Also, I suspect that while the athletic/academic split is the explicitly stated differential of "populist" v "elitist", I wonder if another aspect that may have gone unstated is the question of whether schools that are part of P5 conferences but which haven't distinguished themselves on the field (at least lately) are "deserving" of their spots, as opposed to schools such as Boise State that have had notable on-field success recently. Should a school like Indiana or Kansas "get a pass" on years of mediocre football while Boise State sits on the sidelines? That's a tough question, but aside from the fact that such schools contribute in other ways (and yes, I chose a couple of obvious big basketball brands), there's also the fact that part of the reason they have mediocre records is that they've been competing against the top echelon schools like Ohio State or Oklahoma. As long as they make a reasonable effort to build their programs (and ideally, have sporadic success such as KU's 3 bowl wins under Mangino, including an Orange Bowl), there's no reason they should be booted for "more deserving" programs. It's not necessarily "elitist" to recognize that long-time conference members have often contributed in other ways, not just recently but over time.

My take is that I see schools like Indiana, Kansas (putting aside their elite basketball brands) and Wake Forest as being founders. They were there when their respective conferences were created, so they get the outsized benefit of any founding partner in a successful business (no different than many of the billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg that were there from the beginning). As a result, whether it's fair or not, the notion of whether they "deserve" their spots is irrelevant. They owned their spots from day one.

Those on the outside, however, are going to be held to vastly different standards. You're going to have to bring a ton of cash to the table to buy even one-half of one percent of Facebook stock after its value has long been established. It's no different in the world of conference realignment: anyone that wants to get into the ACC can't just do better than Wake Forest. Anyone that wants to get into the Big Ten can't just do better than Purdue. Anyone that wants to get into the SEC can't just do better than Vanderbilt. It costs a lot more to buy into a multi-billion enterprise (which all of the power conferences are now) when it's worth billions today compared to if you (or your ancestors) invested when it was worth zero when it was founded. That's not elitism - that's just capitalism.

(08-13-2015 10:08 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I read a interview with one of the Commissioner cannot remember who, a few months back about realignment, and one of the questions the interviewer posed was what was some of the criteria that was taken into consideration for a expansion candidate to be a member of the P5. I remember the interviewee saying explicitly one of the criteria was a rich tradition, the program had to have some type of cache with the public some history about it, a winning tradition, a university that had at one time or another that had captured the public mind.

i.e. they must be able to generate good tv ratings and most of your fans must recognize them as a university that has sports teams.
How many typical fans (not people on a sports board) know Buffalo has a football team in FBS? Or ULM? or Middle Tennessee?

I think that is why UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Houston were "class A" in the AAC contract and the rest were "class B."

UConn hasn't been around in the top level as long as USF, but their basketball puts them on the map. Temple hasn't done anything in football, but again, basketball puts them on the map. Cincinnati had some recent football success as well as basketball history. UH was big time not too terribly long ago.

(08-14-2015 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 05:46 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Back to the original question, I think that there are several distinctions to be made. First of all, there's a difference between what someone thinks will happen versus what they think should happen. If an opinion is offered on the former, that doesn't necessarily reflect the poster's preferences so much as their opinion.

If you consider the athletic v academic balance, I suspect that the answer is often more complicated than just one or the other. Geography, markets, cultural fit, and other factors probably often factor into someone's opinion as to what the best fits may be. Just as someone may essentially overlook ethical considerations in politics when it applies to a candidate from his party while applying strict standards to the other party's candidates, someone who may favor a school for other reasons may be more prone to highlight a shortcoming in another candidate in terms of either athletics or academics, even if that was just one factor to consider. It probably also depends on the conference in question - the B1G may not insist on 100% academic excellence, but they can certainly afford to be pickier than the Big 12, for instance. I do think there's also truth to the notion that schools would prefer to associate with schools of similar or higher academic pedigrees - yes, an athletic conference is separate from an academic consortium, but at the same time just as business gets done at the country club, social interaction plays a role in making academic associations, and football games are a great place for people to come together.

Also, I suspect that while the athletic/academic split is the explicitly stated differential of "populist" v "elitist", I wonder if another aspect that may have gone unstated is the question of whether schools that are part of P5 conferences but which haven't distinguished themselves on the field (at least lately) are "deserving" of their spots, as opposed to schools such as Boise State that have had notable on-field success recently. Should a school like Indiana or Kansas "get a pass" on years of mediocre football while Boise State sits on the sidelines? That's a tough question, but aside from the fact that such schools contribute in other ways (and yes, I chose a couple of obvious big basketball brands), there's also the fact that part of the reason they have mediocre records is that they've been competing against the top echelon schools like Ohio State or Oklahoma. As long as they make a reasonable effort to build their programs (and ideally, have sporadic success such as KU's 3 bowl wins under Mangino, including an Orange Bowl), there's no reason they should be booted for "more deserving" programs. It's not necessarily "elitist" to recognize that long-time conference members have often contributed in other ways, not just recently but over time.

My take is that I see schools like Indiana, Kansas (putting aside their elite basketball brands) and Wake Forest as being founders. They were there when their respective conferences were created, so they get the outsized benefit of any founding partner in a successful business (no different than many of the billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg that were there from the beginning). As a result, whether it's fair or not, the notion of whether they "deserve" their spots is irrelevant. They owned their spots from day one.

Those on the outside, however, are going to be held to vastly different standards. You're going to have to bring a ton of cash to the table to buy even one-half of one percent of Facebook stock after its value has long been established. It's no different in the world of conference realignment: anyone that wants to get into the ACC can't just do better than Wake Forest. Anyone that wants to get into the Big Ten can't just do better than Purdue. Anyone that wants to get into the SEC can't just do better than Vanderbilt. It costs a lot more to buy into a multi-billion enterprise (which all of the power conferences are now) when it's worth billions today compared to if you (or your ancestors) invested when it was worth zero when it was founded. That's not elitism - that's just capitalism.

As any CEOs and founders of companies who are millionaires, they still get booted out by stock holders and borad members. Ask the founder and CEO of the warehouse for men's clothing like suits? He got pushed aside. They schools could be pushed aside as well.

(08-14-2015 10:56 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 05:46 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Back to the original question, I think that there are several distinctions to be made. First of all, there's a difference between what someone thinks will happen versus what they think should happen. If an opinion is offered on the former, that doesn't necessarily reflect the poster's preferences so much as their opinion.

If you consider the athletic v academic balance, I suspect that the answer is often more complicated than just one or the other. Geography, markets, cultural fit, and other factors probably often factor into someone's opinion as to what the best fits may be. Just as someone may essentially overlook ethical considerations in politics when it applies to a candidate from his party while applying strict standards to the other party's candidates, someone who may favor a school for other reasons may be more prone to highlight a shortcoming in another candidate in terms of either athletics or academics, even if that was just one factor to consider. It probably also depends on the conference in question - the B1G may not insist on 100% academic excellence, but they can certainly afford to be pickier than the Big 12, for instance. I do think there's also truth to the notion that schools would prefer to associate with schools of similar or higher academic pedigrees - yes, an athletic conference is separate from an academic consortium, but at the same time just as business gets done at the country club, social interaction plays a role in making academic associations, and football games are a great place for people to come together.

Also, I suspect that while the athletic/academic split is the explicitly stated differential of "populist" v "elitist", I wonder if another aspect that may have gone unstated is the question of whether schools that are part of P5 conferences but which haven't distinguished themselves on the field (at least lately) are "deserving" of their spots, as opposed to schools such as Boise State that have had notable on-field success recently. Should a school like Indiana or Kansas "get a pass" on years of mediocre football while Boise State sits on the sidelines? That's a tough question, but aside from the fact that such schools contribute in other ways (and yes, I chose a couple of obvious big basketball brands), there's also the fact that part of the reason they have mediocre records is that they've been competing against the top echelon schools like Ohio State or Oklahoma. As long as they make a reasonable effort to build their programs (and ideally, have sporadic success such as KU's 3 bowl wins under Mangino, including an Orange Bowl), there's no reason they should be booted for "more deserving" programs. It's not necessarily "elitist" to recognize that long-time conference members have often contributed in other ways, not just recently but over time.

My take is that I see schools like Indiana, Kansas (putting aside their elite basketball brands) and Wake Forest as being founders. They were there when their respective conferences were created, so they get the outsized benefit of any founding partner in a successful business (no different than many of the billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg that were there from the beginning). As a result, whether it's fair or not, the notion of whether they "deserve" their spots is irrelevant. They owned their spots from day one.

Those on the outside, however, are going to be held to vastly different standards. You're going to have to bring a ton of cash to the table to buy even one-half of one percent of Facebook stock after its value has long been established. It's no different in the world of conference realignment: anyone that wants to get into the ACC can't just do better than Wake Forest. Anyone that wants to get into the Big Ten can't just do better than Purdue. Anyone that wants to get into the SEC can't just do better than Vanderbilt. It costs a lot more to buy into a multi-billion enterprise (which all of the power conferences are now) when it's worth billions today compared to if you (or your ancestors) invested when it was worth zero when it was founded. That's not elitism - that's just capitalism.

As any CEOs and founders of companies who are millionaires, they still get booted out by stock holders and borad members. Ask the founder and CEO of the warehouse for men's clothing like suits? He got pushed aside. They schools could be pushed aside as well.

Sure, once those CEOs and founders start cashing in on stock and diluting their interest in the company, then they lose control. Schools aren't really giving up control with respect to their conferences except to the extent that they expand. Even then, there are charters and by-laws that protect individual schools from getting pushed out.

More importantly, there's the *practical* application of those charters and by-laws. Schools do NOT want membership continuation based on performance on-the-field. In theory, a school might get kicked out because it's underfunded, having academic compliance issues, breaking other compliance rules, dropping its football program, etc. (although, outside of Temple in the old Big East, we haven't ever seen a power conference actually kick anyone out for any reason, and even then, Temple was ONLY a member for football). However, it will NOT get kicked out for performance on the field (which is what most fans pay attention).

It's the old rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." UNC doesn't want to kick out Wake Forest based on football competitiveness grounds because virtually EVERY program hits a rough patch. My alma mater of Illinois with historically bad football made it to a bowl last year while freaking Michigan didn't. Leaving one conference for a better opportunity in another conference is one thing. Kicking a fellow conference member out for performance issues is an entirely different matter.

Agree you never know when the next Ron Cooper or Steve Kragthorpe will be hired!

(08-12-2015 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is no greater academic snob than U.N.C. and perhaps no greater hypocrisy than their bogus classes, with bogus instructors, all sanctioned by the bursars office.

What this means to me is that it is neither about the academics, although it is good PR to pretend it is, or purely about the athletics either. It is rather about television markets and money.

What has realignment shown us? If you are the Big 10 you can pretend it is about academics when what you are really going after is markets.

If you are the SEC you can pretend it is about athletics and academics as you go for the markets.

If you are the PAC you can pretend it is about future academics, or potential athletics but it is about the markets.

If you are the ACC you can pretend it is about academics, pretend it is about basketball, or football, and even pretend it is about the compromise between the two, but guess what? It's about markets.

Why? "Because it is about television dummy!" Everyone wants to claim it is about something other than money. Why? Because when they admit it is about the money they admit they are whores and then everything is just a matter of price and performance. Hardly is this the crass culture of which academics desire to profess inclusion.

So it's about money. It's about markets because of money. It's about markets because of TV money. But it's said to about athletics and academics, because lah di dah pseudo-aristocrats can't handle conceiving of themselves as whores cheaply pimping the entertainment value of their "student" "athletes".

BINGO! We have a winner. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(08-12-2015 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why? "Because it is about television dummy!" Everyone wants to claim it is about something other than money. Why? Because when they admit it is about the money they admit they are whores and then everything is just a matter of price and performance. Hardly is this the crass culture of which academics desire to profess inclusion.

It goes without saying that they are prostitutes ~ they are academic politicians, after all, and therefore by self-selection they are careerist opportunists who have sold out on their own scholarship and teaching in order to chase power inside academic institutions.

Quote: So it's about money. It's about markets because of money. It's about markets because of TV money.

But its also about markets because of student tuition money. And indirectly because the more selective you can be with the students, the fewer students you have that actually need to be taught, and the more career academics can focus on winning research grants ... and research is worth more money than college sports.

Quote: But it's said to about athletics and academics, because lah di dah pseudo-aristocrats can't handle conceiving of themselves as whores cheaply pimping the entertainment value of their "student" "athletes".

Even if they can handle conceiving of themselves that way, its bad for the enterprise to admit it in public. Status is important, even for prostitutes ~ they would much rather be seen as high class business escorts than as common streetwalkers.

(08-15-2015 08:35 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why? "Because it is about television dummy!" Everyone wants to claim it is about something other than money. Why? Because when they admit it is about the money they admit they are whores and then everything is just a matter of price and performance. Hardly is this the crass culture of which academics desire to profess inclusion.

It goes without saying that they are prostitutes ~ they are academic politicians, after all, and therefore by self-selection they are careerist opportunists who have sold out on their own scholarship and teaching in order to chase power inside academic institutions.

Quote: So it's about money. It's about markets because of money. It's about markets because of TV money.

But its also about markets because of student tuition money. And indirectly because the more selective you can be with the students, the fewer students you have that actually need to be taught, and the more career academics can focus on winning research grants ... and research is worth more money than college sports.

Quote: But it's said to about athletics and academics, because lah di dah pseudo-aristocrats can't handle conceiving of themselves as whores cheaply pimping the entertainment value of their "student" "athletes".

Even if they can handle conceiving of themselves that way, its bad for the enterprise to admit it in public. Status is important, even for prostitutes ~ they would much rather be seen as high class business escorts than as common streetwalkers.

The question goes back to the point in how many of these schools in the P5 that actually doing the exact same thing that North Carolina is doing. I know my dad said that Charles Thompson at OU got an A in the geography class that my dad was in. The only problem was that my dad said Charles missed more than 50% of class time. My dad got a C, and he was there in that class everyday. He never missed a day.

(08-13-2015 10:35 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Louisville has built most of its Athletic Venues from Alumina donations, Corporate Sponsors donations, and Men's basketball surplus revenue. So the difference is UofL is well managed and well guided by Dr. Ramsey and AD Jurich. We have never had a blank check like UConn and UK have.

Again though, wouldn't that work in Connecticut's favor? Doesn't it show that they have the juice to get things done locally that they will need in the ACC?

Louisville has done a great job of taking full advantage of its circumstance, there is no question about that. I think you are understating the amount of public funding that went into building the KFC Yum! Center but I don't care enough about this issue to argue about it. I am just saying that most schools don't get professional sports team level leasing agreements, and the fact Louisville was able to do so has greatly enhanced their profitability - to go along with all of the private fundraising they've managed to achieve.

Still the Cardinals are already in. We are not talking about Louisville. We are pondering who could be next if the ACC needed a new team. Connecticut is definitely in a strong position financially – much stronger than most seem to realize.

+3 This post says it all. It should be pinned at the top of the board. It's all about the money. It always has been, always will be. If conferences want to prove it isn't tell them to go the way of The Ivy League and not offer scholarships.

(08-12-2015 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is no greater academic snob than U.N.C. and perhaps no greater hypocrisy than their bogus classes, with bogus instructors, all sanctioned by the bursars office.

What this means to me is that it is neither about the academics, although it is good PR to pretend it is, or purely about the athletics either. It is rather about television markets and money.

What has realignment shown us? If you are the Big 10 you can pretend it is about academics when what you are really going after is markets.

If you are the SEC you can pretend it is about athletics and academics as you go for the markets.

If you are the PAC you can pretend it is about future academics, or potential athletics but it is about the markets.

If you are the ACC you can pretend it is about academics, pretend it is about basketball, or football, and even pretend it is about the compromise between the two, but guess what? It's about markets.

Why? "Because it is about television dummy!" Everyone wants to claim it is about something other than money. Why? Because when they admit it is about the money they admit they are whores and then everything is just a matter of price and performance. Hardly is this the crass culture of which academics desire to profess inclusion.

So it's about money. It's about markets because of money. It's about markets because of TV money. But it's said to about athletics and academics, because lah di dah pseudo-aristocrats can't handle conceiving of themselves as whores cheaply pimping the entertainment value of their "student" "athletes".

Memphis is a class A university because of their basketball.
Boise State has a long history of winning at all levels, and garner a national viewership.
BYU, Air Force, Navy, Army all have the history and tradition as a Class A. Some schools in the MWC counts as well like New Mexico, Hawaii, UNLV, Fresno State, San Deigo State and Colorado State.
North Dakota State is building into theirs, and have been winning at all levels.
SMU should be on that list, and so is Rice.
People would have heard about Marshall since they did a movie on the tragic airplane accident that killed Marshall players.

(08-16-2015 01:53 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 10:35 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Louisville has built most of its Athletic Venues from Alumina donations, Corporate Sponsors donations, and Men's basketball surplus revenue. So the difference is UofL is well managed and well guided by Dr. Ramsey and AD Jurich. We have never had a blank check like UConn and UK have.

Again though, wouldn't that work in Connecticut's favor? Doesn't it show that they have the juice to get things done locally that they will need in the ACC?

Louisville has done a great job of taking full advantage of its circumstance, there is no question about that. I think you are understating the amount of public funding that went into building the KFC Yum! Center but I don't care enough about this issue to argue about it. I am just saying that most schools don't get professional sports team level leasing agreements, and the fact Louisville was able to do so has greatly enhanced their profitability - to go along with all of the private fundraising they've managed to achieve.

Still the Cardinals are already in. We are not talking about Louisville. We are pondering who could be next if the ACC needed a new team. Connecticut is definitely in a strong position financially – much stronger than most seem to realize.

Yes, but is it 15 and 16 without Notre Dame? Then I would look at UConn and Cincinnati. Unless the unlikely additions of Texas and Notre Dame were to occur for football.

Market equal money, money equals market.

(08-13-2015 09:13 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 07:42 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 07:31 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  BYU, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas,
TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech

Iowa State, Memphis, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Connecticut,
Temple, East Carolina, UCF, South Florida

No Temple and no U. Conn. Those 2 are not even on the expansion list. Boise State, Colorado State, Northern Illinois, Old Dominion, and North Dakota State are more ahead of them. Even Air Force is more desirable than U. Conn. and Temple.

Old Dominion and Northern Illinois are ahead of Connecticut? That is insane.

That is correct (I laughed when I read that!) - but it also obviously also doesn't include NDSU. The Big12 certainly isn't going to reach down to a sparsely populated state to elevate a div I-AA school for a new member.

Any movement from the East to P5 from G5 will be from Cincinnati, UConn, UCF and USF. Any movement from the Midwest will come from Memphis, Houston and any movement from out West will come from BYU, BSU, SDSU, Colorado St, UNLV.