(08-15-2016 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 07:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 05:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  You know GTS, I actually think 3 of those 4 divisions could work. But you know the non-starter splitting the ACC North and South is, why would you think your Atlantic Division even stands of chance of actually working?

Because careful observation would note there IS no ACC North in my alignment. Possible exception to Pitt. And the real rub on splitting ACC divisions by geography is the Virginia schools end up with New England schools. And for recruiting they don't wanna be known as a "Northern" team. With BC/Cuse ejected ... and the name "North" artfully dodged in Division nomenclature .... problem solved. Also VT and UVA get who they most want (for the most part). UVA-FSU have a trophy they play for ... but that one has been largely buried since George Welsh left. Far from forcing UVA to play less of the NC schools (which would likely happen in geographical alignment in the present ACC), they get to play them all ... guaranteed. I'd also like to denote I reinstated (either completely or made annual) several major rivalries in my alignment (Kansas-Mizzou, GT-Auburn, GT-TN, Texas-TAMU, UNC-SC, WVU-Pitt, WF-UNC, WF-Duke, NCST-UNC, NCST-Duke). And, all things considered, they're decently competitively balanced. With the exception of baseball. Because pretty much EVERYBODY in the ACC and SEC is pretty damn good at baseball. There's not enough crappy teams to slide in to achieve balance there while maintaining geographic divisions.

Try 40:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse (Colonial Division)

Louisville, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (Mountain Division)

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest (Piss Ant Division)

Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina (Peach Division)

Florida, Florida State, L.S.U., Miami, Texas A&M (Gulf Division)

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt (Old South Division)

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State (Plains Division)

Arkansas, Baylor, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech (Lone Star Division)


That should still leave most rivalries as 1 permanent crossover while reuniting many.

What are we doing?

This is College Football.

Do you know what that League is? That is a Semi-Pro league using State funds, booster funds and hiding behind Educational Institutions. The networks know a Real Semi-Pro league will never work so they are ruining college football to create it and maximize their money.

How would recruiting work or would we have to move to a HS draft?

This whole thing is crazy.

If this happens the best football will be played a Div below that one.

(08-15-2016 08:58 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 07:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 05:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  You know GTS, I actually think 3 of those 4 divisions could work. But you know the non-starter splitting the ACC North and South is, why would you think your Atlantic Division even stands of chance of actually working?

Because careful observation would note there IS no ACC North in my alignment. Possible exception to Pitt. And the real rub on splitting ACC divisions by geography is the Virginia schools end up with New England schools. And for recruiting they don't wanna be known as a "Northern" team. With BC/Cuse ejected ... and the name "North" artfully dodged in Division nomenclature .... problem solved. Also VT and UVA get who they most want (for the most part). UVA-FSU have a trophy they play for ... but that one has been largely buried since George Welsh left. Far from forcing UVA to play less of the NC schools (which would likely happen in geographical alignment in the present ACC), they get to play them all ... guaranteed. I'd also like to denote I reinstated (either completely or made annual) several major rivalries in my alignment (Kansas-Mizzou, GT-Auburn, GT-TN, Texas-TAMU, UNC-SC, WVU-Pitt, WF-UNC, WF-Duke, NCST-UNC, NCST-Duke). And, all things considered, they're decently competitively balanced. With the exception of baseball. Because pretty much EVERYBODY in the ACC and SEC is pretty damn good at baseball. There's not enough crappy teams to slide in to achieve balance there while maintaining geographic divisions.

Try 40:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse (Colonial Division)

Louisville, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (Mountain Division)

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest (Piss Ant Division)

Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina (Peach Division)

Florida, Florida State, L.S.U., Miami, Texas A&M (Gulf Division)

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt (Old South Division)

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State (Plains Division)

Arkansas, Baylor, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech (Lone Star Division)


That should still leave most rivalries as 1 permanent crossover while reuniting many.

What are we doing?

This is College Football.

Do you know what that League is? That is a Semi-Pro league using State funds, booster funds and hiding behind Educational Institutions. The networks know a Real Semi-Pro league will never work so they are ruining college football to create it and maximize their money.

How would recruiting work or would we have to move to a HS draft?

This whole thing is crazy.

If this happens the best football will be played a Div below that one.

Chill! The tell is in the name of North Carolina's division.

(08-15-2016 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 08:58 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 07:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 05:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  You know GTS, I actually think 3 of those 4 divisions could work. But you know the non-starter splitting the ACC North and South is, why would you think your Atlantic Division even stands of chance of actually working?

Because careful observation would note there IS no ACC North in my alignment. Possible exception to Pitt. And the real rub on splitting ACC divisions by geography is the Virginia schools end up with New England schools. And for recruiting they don't wanna be known as a "Northern" team. With BC/Cuse ejected ... and the name "North" artfully dodged in Division nomenclature .... problem solved. Also VT and UVA get who they most want (for the most part). UVA-FSU have a trophy they play for ... but that one has been largely buried since George Welsh left. Far from forcing UVA to play less of the NC schools (which would likely happen in geographical alignment in the present ACC), they get to play them all ... guaranteed. I'd also like to denote I reinstated (either completely or made annual) several major rivalries in my alignment (Kansas-Mizzou, GT-Auburn, GT-TN, Texas-TAMU, UNC-SC, WVU-Pitt, WF-UNC, WF-Duke, NCST-UNC, NCST-Duke). And, all things considered, they're decently competitively balanced. With the exception of baseball. Because pretty much EVERYBODY in the ACC and SEC is pretty damn good at baseball. There's not enough crappy teams to slide in to achieve balance there while maintaining geographic divisions.

Try 40:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse (Colonial Division)

Louisville, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (Mountain Division)

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest (Piss Ant Division)

Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina (Peach Division)

Florida, Florida State, L.S.U., Miami, Texas A&M (Gulf Division)

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt (Old South Division)

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State (Plains Division)

Arkansas, Baylor, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech (Lone Star Division)


That should still leave most rivalries as 1 permanent crossover while reuniting many.

What are we doing?

This is College Football.

Do you know what that League is? That is a Semi-Pro league using State funds, booster funds and hiding behind Educational Institutions. The networks know a Real Semi-Pro league will never work so they are ruining college football to create it and maximize their money.

How would recruiting work or would we have to move to a HS draft?

This whole thing is crazy.

If this happens the best football will be played a Div below that one.

Chill! The tell is in the name of North Carolina's division.

Lol I know that you aren't on board with this!

However, I seriously think this is the direction the networks are trying to move. We've discussed this briefly prior to today.

I love a good super-conference thread.

There is a certain regional conglomeration that I would like to see. I'm serious about that even though I know some don't want to see it.

I'm more in GTS' camp as far as how I would set it up.

The SEC and ACC are natural partners. Most of the Big 12 would fit in as well.

(08-15-2016 10:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I love a good super-conference thread.

There is a certain regional conglomeration that I would like to see. I'm serious about that even though I know some don't want to see it.

I'm more in GTS' camp as far as how I would set it up.

The SEC and ACC are natural partners. Most of the Big 12 would fit in as well.

That's not a conference though. That's a new division.

I could see a regional realignment. (I'd be against it too )

NE/SE/NW/SW/MW/TX

Problem is, how to you balance it. The Programs would be easy to plug in, but how do you balance the money? How do you balance fairness? Do we all get the same T.V. Revenue if the SE is bringing in 5 billion a year and the NE is bringing in 1 billion?

It's all one big complicated issue.

This is why I don't think a new division or a new setup would work.

Not to mention the point that has been out there forever. Someone has to lose. Say you take a program like Iowa who can win an average of 6-7 games per season, make their fans happy by going to Bowls 7/10 years with the occasional Conference Championship type season. Put them in a new division and say their wins drop to 3-4 per average per season. A lot of people start losing interest real quick.

We as Americans are very fickle. We love to support a winner but we are quick to turn away from a loser. The one place I always felt was different was in the SEC. Our fans are loyal, we have tons of respect for each other and our respective programs. I don't wanna dilute that or tarnish that with some of the other stuff I have seen around the country.

Maybe I am just stuck in my ways or what I am comfortable with... Change is always difficult.

(08-15-2016 10:33 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 10:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I love a good super-conference thread.

There is a certain regional conglomeration that I would like to see. I'm serious about that even though I know some don't want to see it.

I'm more in GTS' camp as far as how I would set it up.

The SEC and ACC are natural partners. Most of the Big 12 would fit in as well.

That's not a conference though. That's a new division.

I could see a regional realignment. (I'd be against it too )

NE/SE/NW/SW/MW/TX

Problem is, how to you balance it. The Programs would be easy to plug in, but how do you balance the money? How do you balance fairness? Do we all get the same T.V. Revenue if the SE is bringing in 5 billion a year and the NE is bringing in 1 billion?

It's all one big complicated issue.

This is why I don't think a new division or a new setup would work.

Not to mention the point that has been out there forever. Someone has to lose. Say you take a program like Iowa who can win an average of 6-7 games per season, make their fans happy by going to Bowls 7/10 years with the occasional Conference Championship type season. Put them in a new division and say their wins drop to 3-4 per average per season. A lot of people start losing interest real quick.

We as Americans are very fickle. We love to support a winner but we are quick to turn away from a loser. The one place I always felt was different was in the SEC. Our fans are loyal, we have tons of respect for each other and our respective programs. I don't wanna dilute that or tarnish that with some of the other stuff I have seen around the country.

Maybe I am just stuck in my ways or what I am comfortable with... Change is always difficult.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want the entire country in one league for some of the reasons you stated.

I do totally agree with you that every league needs some bottom feeders and the opportunity for some programs to rise and others to fall. If not then the competition just becomes too difficult. I don't think you have to give that up with big leagues though, just make sure you include the weak programs along with the strong ones. That's why the notion of merging conferences doesn't bother me. If everyone comes along then it's pretty much the same thing as far as strength of schedule goes. It's also why I don't have a problem including a few more G5s because some of those programs will likely never be major competitors.

There's a few general reasons I like the idea of the super conference....

1. Sooner or later all the Power leagues are pretty much going to exclusively play each other. There won't be any more FCS games or multiple match-ups with G5 schools. The cupcakes may never completely go away, but I think we'll see at least 11 quality games for everyone on a regular basis. The fans will eventually demand it for all the money they pay for tickets and the like. Networks will like it because they can have more valuable content to sell to advertisers

Anyway, if some of these leagues combine then we can have a more structured way of making sure everyone is playing a good balance of strong match-ups and weaker match-ups all the while playing high profile schools. We can play rivals on a yearly basis and still schedule schools from other regions, but what would have been a non-conference game in the past will have the added interest and value of helping decide the conference race.

2. All these schools coming under one roof will give them greater leverage when negotiating with networks because so much content will be at stake. Right now, the networks have the greater leverage because there are fewer bidders than producers. We can flip that dynamic to some degree and come out financially stronger.

I hate to make it sound like its all about money because it shouldn't be, but you need money to make these athletic departments solvent and independent of funding from the academic side of the university. That and more money in the coffers should help the non-revenue sports...maybe we can even revive some of the old sports that got sacrificed when Title XI was implemented.

That and I think we need to do more to compensate some of these athletes. With more money at our disposal, that becomes a lot easier to manage. I'm not advocating paying players or anything. I'm just saying we could provide better health insurance, stipends, and continuing education opportunities. I don't think that would be out of proportion with what the athletes contribute to the university. I think that's especially true when you consider the decreasing value of a college education.

3. Bringing regional rivals from different conferences together. Especially when we're talking about old SEC and ACC schools, most of these used to be in the same league before the SEC was formed in 1932. If we're back under one roof then some of these old rivalries can be renewed and create more interesting games for everyone.

Auburn and Alabama both used to play Georgia Tech every year. Wouldn't it be great if we could do that more frequently? Same goes for some of these other match-ups between schools that aren't located that far apart.

One of the positive side effects of that is better travel for fans. If our divisions are more regionally based rather than centered on the conference we're in then a lot of fans won't have to travel as far as often as they do now.

I hope that all makes sense. Again, I completely understand why someone would be against it. There would certainly be bumps in the road if something like this happened. I just think the positives outweigh the negatives.

I wasn't around in 1932 but I am obviously well aware of our history. So I do see your point. I think at its peak the SoCon has 23 members. Which is huge based off of today's standards. If that conference were to be revived today with the newer ACC additions and the Big 12 it would be huge.

The PAC and B1G would also have to be in the mix as well. Which is why I'm saying it's a different division all together. At that point though, do we all act as individuals or do we form conferences again?

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems instead of doing things on a conference scale it turns into individual programs. So now networks are paying on a by team basis? No offense but if that were the case I would not wanna move into a form of socialism lol. If Tennessee is bringing in 102k fans per game, competing for championships and so on why would they want equal distribution for a school who doesn't offer as much as a program.

With no conference affiliation it's everyone for themselves. Then eventually how would recruiting work. Eventually do the top 10-12 school just get everything because they are the only ones who are truly competing while everyone else gets the scraps?

That would only separate it further in my opinion.

Say we do hold it together and all agree to fly under one banner. Just 2 huge super conferences without splitting off and becoming our own division. Do we take all of the CFP slots? Do we offer one to a lower tier school to be fair? Even though there would more then likely be 40-50 schools in our new setup that are truly better?

For something like this to happen it would just require so much cooperation. I don't feel everyone would play nice. I have also always been one of those guys who feels an education is enough.

When you go to college you are either on scholarship in some form or another or you pay for it, sometimes a mixture of both.

If you are out of state and it costs $40,000 for you to attend my university per year. I am giving you $160,000 in value just because you are good at a sport.

I think there should be some additional insurance coverage and if you get injured you should be compensated. I am also ok with a stipend that makes sense. Most full time students who work aren't bringing in 30k a year. The avg is about 10-15k for a part time job for a full time student work 4-6 hours a few days a week.

That's a discussion for a different day though lol.

But on the original point, I just don't see how all of it works out. At some point the greed has to stop and we have to start moving forward together to keep things somewhat level.

We made 34 million per team last season lol. What were we at 10 years ago? How much more do we need lol?

Between tv revenue, bowl revenue, CFP revenue, donations and so on if we can't make it work today I have no clue how to make it work in the future. 50 million per team per season would be great until it's not.

I just don't see an end to it. I just think this would be the start of something none of us would ultimately want in the end.

Again, these are my thoughts on it. It could turn out great, I just personally don't see it.

(08-16-2016 03:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I hate to make it sound like its all about money because it shouldn't be, but you need money to make these athletic departments solvent and independent of funding from the academic side of the university.

If we're serious about stopping this runaway cash game, then what you're REALLY requesting are some of the foundations of nearly any professional sports league .... namely caps. College football in particular would be well served by:

- Salary cap for staff ... because we're heading down the road of a position coach getting over $1,000,000/yr.
- Facility size, quantity, and amenity restrictions. We're already to where you're not a serious football team if you don't have a laser tag pavilion with 20 pool tables. This is where the profligacy is at its worst.
- Some SANE recruiting restrictions. Kids can sign the LOI any time they want after they graduate Jr. year in high school. That will stop this game of which hat do I wanna wear in my high school cafeteria on NSD. "Oh you're committed? Sign that LOI right there then."
- Some SANE academic measuring sticks not so flawed as the APR. Under NCAA rules if you make a 1.99 in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech you're ineligible ... bad student. But if you make a 2.01 in Magazines at U[sic]GA aye-ok great student hit the field. That's kinda stupid. Also, APR punishes kids for loading on electives if they want to figure out what they want to do while they're AT college. If you start your freshmen year with 30 hours of general electives you'd need for your degree path almost no matter what to feel out things ... and you get a 4.0 ... you're still academically ineligible because you must make progress towards a declared degree every semester ... starting right away. Which again ... pretty damn stupid.

(08-16-2016 12:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 03:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I hate to make it sound like its all about money because it shouldn't be, but you need money to make these athletic departments solvent and independent of funding from the academic side of the university.

If we're serious about stopping this runaway cash game, then what you're REALLY requesting are some of the foundations of nearly any professional sports league .... namely caps. College football in particular would be well served by:

- Salary cap for staff ... because we're heading down the road of a position coach getting over $1,000,000/yr.
- Facility size, quantity, and amenity restrictions. We're already to where you're not a serious football team if you don't have a laser tag pavilion with 20 pool tables. This is where the profligacy is at its worst.
- Some SANE recruiting restrictions. Kids can sign the LOI any time they want after they graduate Jr. year in high school. That will stop this game of which hat do I wanna wear in my high school cafeteria on NSD. "Oh you're committed? Sign that LOI right there then."
- Some SANE academic measuring sticks not so flawed as the APR. Under NCAA rules if you make a 1.99 in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech you're ineligible ... bad student. But if you make a 2.01 in Magazines at U[sic]GA aye-ok great student hit the field. That's kinda stupid. Also, APR punishes kids for loading on electives if they want to figure out what they want to do while they're AT college. If you start your freshmen year with 30 hours of general electives you'd need for your degree path almost no matter what to feel out things ... and you get a 4.0 ... you're still academically ineligible because you must make progress towards a declared degree every semester ... starting right away. Which again ... pretty damn stupid.

All good points.

I would add:

-We should mandate guaranteed 4 year scholarships. We're probably headed that way anyway, but just throwing it out there.

-If an athletic department generates more revenue than can be spent under the cap then it automatically goes 1 of 2 places...back into the general fund of the university itself or added to the principle of athletic endowments.

(08-16-2016 12:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 03:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I hate to make it sound like its all about money because it shouldn't be, but you need money to make these athletic departments solvent and independent of funding from the academic side of the university.

If we're serious about stopping this runaway cash game, then what you're REALLY requesting are some of the foundations of nearly any professional sports league .... namely caps. College football in particular would be well served by:

- Salary cap for staff ... because we're heading down the road of a position coach getting over $1,000,000/yr.
- Facility size, quantity, and amenity restrictions. We're already to where you're not a serious football team if you don't have a laser tag pavilion with 20 pool tables. This is where the profligacy is at its worst.
- Some SANE recruiting restrictions. Kids can sign the LOI any time they want after they graduate Jr. year in high school. That will stop this game of which hat do I wanna wear in my high school cafeteria on NSD. "Oh you're committed? Sign that LOI right there then."
- Some SANE academic measuring sticks not so flawed as the APR. Under NCAA rules if you make a 1.99 in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech you're ineligible ... bad student. But if you make a 2.01 in Magazines at U[sic]GA aye-ok great student hit the field. That's kinda stupid. Also, APR punishes kids for loading on electives if they want to figure out what they want to do while they're AT college. If you start your freshmen year with 30 hours of general electives you'd need for your degree path almost no matter what to feel out things ... and you get a 4.0 ... you're still academically ineligible because you must make progress towards a declared degree every semester ... starting right away. Which again ... pretty damn stupid.

I don't disagree with your points, but you are fighting the wrong battles. The issue is a society that lives with an artificial sense of security, corporations that don't want innovative competition but do want to tie up intellectual property via grants, government or anything else they control, and a public anesthetized by booze, broads, and football who as long as they have a place to live, something to eat, and a TV set will do nothing to facilitate much needed change.

Football is therefore merely a projection of power for the powerless and that is why it will remain way out of kilter from reality.

So....

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State to the SEC
Texas, Baylor, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC

?

(10-17-2016 04:58 PM)1Dukie Wrote:  So....

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State to the SEC
Texas, Baylor, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC

?

I have no issue with this. I think Big 10 and SEC are my top choices for ISU.

At this point I think we are much more likely to see P4 conferences with 15 members.

I know this won't be popular on this board but:

Notre Dame to the ACC
Kansas to the B1G
Tejas and Oklahoma to the PAC
West Virginia to the SEC

The other 6 can combine with the best of the"candidates" to create a conference a level down from P status but above G.

Maybe:
Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
Colorado State
Tulane
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Houston
Air Force
SMU
Rice

At this point, I'll take TCU, KU, ISU and OKST. I know JR it isn't ideal or the brands the SEC wants, but after trying to find a to rescue the Cyclones, I think a 3 divisional set up as follows could work:

Central: ISU, MIZZ, KU, UK, TEN, VU
West: A&M, OKST, ARK, TCU, LSU, MISS
East: UGA, AU, BAMA, SCAR, UF, MSST

Let UT and OU figure out how to convince HS students to play a B1G or PAC schedule. I'm sure the ivory tower types at said schools will be thrilled that they can proudly brag about their new academic affiliation while simultaneously killing the football program. The boosters and fans are sure to be pleased with that level of strategic acumen.

(10-17-2016 07:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  At this point I think we are much more likely to see P4 conferences with 15 members.

I know this won't be popular on this board but:

Notre Dame to the ACC
Kansas to the B1G
Tejas and Oklahoma to the PAC
West Virginia to the SEC

The other 6 can combine with the best of the"candidates" to create a conference a level down from P status but above G.

Maybe:
Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
Colorado State
Tulane
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Houston
Air Force
SMU
Rice

Nice attempt at trolling X. OU and UT will go where ESPN can make the most off of them and that's not the PAC.

(10-17-2016 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 07:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  At this point I think we are much more likely to see P4 conferences with 15 members.

I know this won't be popular on this board but:

Notre Dame to the ACC
Kansas to the B1G
Tejas and Oklahoma to the PAC
West Virginia to the SEC

The other 6 can combine with the best of the"candidates" to create a conference a level down from P status but above G.

Maybe:
Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
Colorado State
Tulane
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Houston
Air Force
SMU
Rice

Nice attempt at trolling X. OU and UT will go where ESPN can make the most off of them and that's not the PAC.

Just thinking about what a P4 will eventually look like.
BTW my math was wrong (I only had 14 in the PAC)

Today had been expected by a lot of folks for a long time.
The big 12 fans have been anticipating today, but seem surprised now that it has come.
I feel for all Big 12 fans and today's realization that their conference is dead.

(10-17-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  Today had been expected by a lot of folks for a long time.
The big 12 fans have been anticipating today, but seem surprised now that it has come.
I feel for all Big 12 fans and today's realization that their conference is dead.

Let me amend your nuance here. The Big 12 is living the role of Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day. Only this time they may never get the girl and get out. They simply can't change their nature. Every morning the alarm clock goes off and they are still pricks!

(10-17-2016 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  Today had been expected by a lot of folks for a long time.
The big 12 fans have been anticipating today, but seem surprised now that it has come.
I feel for all Big 12 fans and today's realization that their conference is dead.

Let me amend your nuance here. The Big 12 is living the role of Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day. Only this time they may never get the girl and get out. They simply can't change their nature. Every morning the alarm clock goes off and they are still pricks!

Bill Murray's character seemed to become more mature as the days passed. The Big 12 leaders seemed to be getting worse.