(07-12-2017 06:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Short of becoming Idaho's flagship, Boise has reached its ceiling.

Back in the day though.

(07-12-2017 05:35 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I doubt the Power 5 will take anyone. If Boise St wasn't upgraded to the PAC 12, upgrading anyone else is dreaming.

That is not what the experts say who run these P5 conferences. The ones who are spending money and keeping up could be part of the P5. As long as schools like Boise State continues to win? They will be put in as part of the P5 structures. As it is, several G5 schools happened to make more money in ticket sales than several P5, and they wind up with more tv ratings favorite than several ACC schools.

For the Pac, assuming anything to the east of the current footprint and additional UCs are off limits the schools they should look at geographically are Colorado State and Hawaii. UNLV is for all intents and purposes a commuter school, it does not pass the academic smell test. If they had to go 16 within the existing footprint they would need to grab one of the UCs and most likely San Diego State.

I don't think the Pac opens Texas without actually getting UT-Austin.

(07-10-2017 05:47 PM)lew240z Wrote:  Air Force has no interest at all in being in the same conference as Navy and Army. None. If they did, it would have already happened. Either Air Force or Colorado State would leave the other behind for the PAC 12 or Big XII. Neither has the slightest chance at the other P5's and I doubt that Air Force is acceptable to PAC since it is military and does virtually no research.

As far as changing to another G conference, why would they?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/colleg...e-1.960977

"Air Force AD Hans Mueh told the Denver Post that his academy's interest in joining the Big East as a football-only member was "very high," then went on to say he hopes Navy and Army would join the Falcons on the football side of the league."

(07-09-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ...would your power conference legitimately consider?

Seriously, are there any non-power schools that could contend for a spot in your conference?

Cincinnati to the ACC or SEC? Connecticut to the B1G or ACC? UNLV or New Mexico to the PAC? Anyone to the XII or is it a dead man walking?

The answer to this question is a question "what non P-5 can you add that would not cause FSU, Clemson, GT, NC State, and VT to erupt over the inability to sell tickets for said game?" That's before you get to the question of actually making money for the conference.

That leaves Navy, Cincinnati, Tulane, and USF. Academically and culturally those four present no problems.

Tulane would be considered.

The issue for Tulane is their off and on commitment to sports. Do you trust them not to crawfish a third time on big time football? Otherwise their location for the ACC is ideal.

Their location in New Orleans and their academic status are a plus. While LSU would likely be pissed - it would add an ACC/SEC rivalry even if LSU refused to play them because it would facilitate talk.

FSU and GT have to not be opposed.

Navy would be considered.

The issue for Navy is not the return to the old standing order - http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/do...ro-sports. The ACC would take Navy for non-basketball sports no matter how bad their football became because they offer intangibles such as their games with ND and Army. Navy also pokes a finger into MD's eye.

But it's a Navy decision.

UVa and VT have to not be opposed (and they aren't) and ND would need to sponsor them.

Cincy would be considered.

Cincy's biggest problem is that their geography makes them third banana in KY and Ohio, and fourth banana in Indiana. As with Tulane and LSU, it would add to a Cincy-Ohio State "talking rivalry".

Louisville and ND have to not be opposed

USF would be considered.

USF is the leading non P-5 Florida school and their research portfolio is respected.

Miami and FSU have to not be opposed and one of the two have to sponsor them.

There are worse places than Tampa/St. Pete.


"Not being opposed" and "considering" are not the same as wanting.

ECU, Temple, UConn, USF, - these are all non-starters for the ACC.

Since there is probably no way to cleanly part up the B12, who the ACC would "consider" is predicated in part by who in the B12 can't get a ride. The ACC would not reject Texas, OU, Kansas, TCU, or Iowa State out of hand. At the size level of 18, WVa might finally have a chance in the ACC - but that's looking into a murky future world.

Here's a more interesting question - if Chicago and Johns Hopkins wanted to field a P-5 football team, would the Big 10 acquiesce?

Other than New Mexico and a P16 scenario, it seems unlikely that any of the ACC, SEC, B10, or P12 actually add a non P-5.

(07-14-2017 05:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:47 PM)lew240z Wrote:  Air Force has no interest at all in being in the same conference as Navy and Army. None. If they did, it would have already happened. Either Air Force or Colorado State would leave the other behind for the PAC 12 or Big XII. Neither has the slightest chance at the other P5's and I doubt that Air Force is acceptable to PAC since it is military and does virtually no research.

As far as changing to another G conference, why would they?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/colleg...e-1.960977

"Air Force AD Hans Mueh told the Denver Post that his academy's interest in joining the Big East as a football-only member was "very high," then went on to say he hopes Navy and Army would join the Falcons on the football side of the league."

Mueh's main goal at that time was getting the Falcons' basketball and other sports out of the MWC, and into the MVC. From that standpoint being in the same conference as Navy and Army makes sense. However, when the MVC essentially told him there is no way in hell of AFA joining, he wasn't so hot for the idea of a football only membership in the BE when the other sports would have to go indy. The WCC, WAC, etc. weren't an alternative.

I don't see ANY G5 schools getting the nod as part of a general expansion of the P5 leagues. There's going to be LESS not more money. Meanwhile, costs are going to be increasing as time goes on. The coaching salary race, COA, Title IX concerns, additional facilities, etc.

Most P5 programs lose money by the pant load as things stand now. And these programs have a LOT more to lose than the G5 teams do when it comes to TV revenue. Instead of MTSU trying to patch a 1 million a year hole, it might be Ole Miss, or Wake Forest, or Minnesota, or Texas Tech, or Oregon State trying to patch 10 million a year holes. There's no amount of money that a G5 entrant can pay that will make up that hole. And there will be pressure for the P5 to contract, not expand.

As 'must take' cable contract deals become much leas valuable, schools like UConn lose much of their value.

Basically a school will have to prove that they provide value to the other members. And by value, I mean a lot of value.

----

Now some have opined that there might be a cracking up of various P5 conferences, which might result in a G5 team getting the nod. That's somewhat possible, but I think there might be less opportunity than people think.

Basically, the ACC and Big XII might be raided. But the ACC has too many members anyway. There might be a rump Big XII that takes a G5 or 2. But that's going to be it. My guess is that Houston is probably the best placed, because Texas and Oklahoma are the most likely teams to leave, and without UT, there'll be less opposition to UH (as well as a need to stay as relevant as possible in Texas). If WVU still is in rump Big XII, either Cincy or UConn will get the other slot.

(07-12-2017 11:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Given Army's current leadership, they would go to the Ivy schedule IF it meant they could still play Navy and Air Force.

Tell me more.

(07-14-2017 05:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ...would your power conference legitimately consider?

Seriously, are there any non-power schools that could contend for a spot in your conference?

Cincinnati to the ACC or SEC? Connecticut to the B1G or ACC? UNLV or New Mexico to the PAC? Anyone to the XII or is it a dead man walking?

The answer to this question is a question "what non P-5 can you add that would not cause FSU, Clemson, GT, NC State, and VT to erupt over the inability to sell tickets for said game?" That's before you get to the question of actually making money for the conference.

That leaves Navy, Cincinnati, Tulane, and USF. Academically and culturally those four present no problems.

Tulane would be considered.

The issue for Tulane is their off and on commitment to sports. Do you trust them not to crawfish a third time on big time football? Otherwise their location for the ACC is ideal.

Their location in New Orleans and their academic status are a plus. While LSU would likely be pissed - it would add an ACC/SEC rivalry even if LSU refused to play them because it would facilitate talk.

FSU and GT have to not be opposed.

Navy would be considered.

The issue for Navy is not the return to the old standing order - http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/do...ro-sports. The ACC would take Navy for non-basketball sports no matter how bad their football became because they offer intangibles such as their games with ND and Army. Navy also pokes a finger into MD's eye.

But it's a Navy decision.

UVa and VT have to not be opposed (and they aren't) and ND would need to sponsor them.

Cincy would be considered.

Cincy's biggest problem is that their geography makes them third banana in KY and Ohio, and fourth banana in Indiana. As with Tulane and LSU, it would add to a Cincy-Ohio State "talking rivalry".

Louisville and ND have to not be opposed

USF would be considered.

USF is the leading non P-5 Florida school and their research portfolio is respected.

Miami and FSU have to not be opposed and one of the two have to sponsor them.

There are worse places than Tampa/St. Pete.


"Not being opposed" and "considering" are not the same as wanting.

ECU, Temple, UConn, USF, - these are all non-starters for the ACC.

Since there is probably no way to cleanly part up the B12, who the ACC would "consider" is predicated in part by who in the B12 can't get a ride. The ACC would not reject Texas, OU, Kansas, TCU, or Iowa State out of hand. At the size level of 18, WVa might finally have a chance in the ACC - but that's looking into a murky future world.

Here's a more interesting question - if Chicago and Johns Hopkins wanted to field a P-5 football team, would the Big 10 acquiesce?

Other than New Mexico and a P16 scenario, it seems unlikely that any of the ACC, SEC, B10, or P12 actually add a non P-5.

I get you don't like UConn, but according to all reports UConn to the ACC was discussed when Louisville actually got the invite. And I'm not saying we should have got in over Louisville, Louisville does a great job with their athletic dept and they deserve to be a power school, I'm just saying it was discussed at a high level according to reports.

(07-31-2017 02:07 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ...would your power conference legitimately consider?

Seriously, are there any non-power schools that could contend for a spot in your conference?

Cincinnati to the ACC or SEC? Connecticut to the B1G or ACC? UNLV or New Mexico to the PAC? Anyone to the XII or is it a dead man walking?

The answer to this question is a question "what non P-5 can you add that would not cause FSU, Clemson, GT, NC State, and VT to erupt over the inability to sell tickets for said game?" That's before you get to the question of actually making money for the conference.

That leaves Navy, Cincinnati, Tulane, and USF. Academically and culturally those four present no problems.

Tulane would be considered.

The issue for Tulane is their off and on commitment to sports. Do you trust them not to crawfish a third time on big time football? Otherwise their location for the ACC is ideal.

Their location in New Orleans and their academic status are a plus. While LSU would likely be pissed - it would add an ACC/SEC rivalry even if LSU refused to play them because it would facilitate talk.

FSU and GT have to not be opposed.

Navy would be considered.

The issue for Navy is not the return to the old standing order - http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/do...ro-sports. The ACC would take Navy for non-basketball sports no matter how bad their football became because they offer intangibles such as their games with ND and Army. Navy also pokes a finger into MD's eye.

But it's a Navy decision.

UVa and VT have to not be opposed (and they aren't) and ND would need to sponsor them.

Cincy would be considered.

Cincy's biggest problem is that their geography makes them third banana in KY and Ohio, and fourth banana in Indiana. As with Tulane and LSU, it would add to a Cincy-Ohio State "talking rivalry".

Louisville and ND have to not be opposed

USF would be considered.

USF is the leading non P-5 Florida school and their research portfolio is respected.

Miami and FSU have to not be opposed and one of the two have to sponsor them.

There are worse places than Tampa/St. Pete.


"Not being opposed" and "considering" are not the same as wanting.

ECU, Temple, UConn, USF, - these are all non-starters for the ACC.

Since there is probably no way to cleanly part up the B12, who the ACC would "consider" is predicated in part by who in the B12 can't get a ride. The ACC would not reject Texas, OU, Kansas, TCU, or Iowa State out of hand. At the size level of 18, WVa might finally have a chance in the ACC - but that's looking into a murky future world.

Here's a more interesting question - if Chicago and Johns Hopkins wanted to field a P-5 football team, would the Big 10 acquiesce?

Other than New Mexico and a P16 scenario, it seems unlikely that any of the ACC, SEC, B10, or P12 actually add a non P-5.

I get you don't like UConn, but according to all reports UConn to the ACC was discussed when Louisville actually got the invite. And I'm not saying we should have got in over Louisville, Louisville does a great job with their athletic dept and they deserve to be a power school, I'm just saying it was discussed at a high level according to reports.

I don't care for Connecticut (no offense) but I have them pegged at the top of current, non-power schools that would fit best in a power conference along with Cincinnati.

(07-31-2017 02:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 02:07 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ...would your power conference legitimately consider?

Seriously, are there any non-power schools that could contend for a spot in your conference?

Cincinnati to the ACC or SEC? Connecticut to the B1G or ACC? UNLV or New Mexico to the PAC? Anyone to the XII or is it a dead man walking?

The answer to this question is a question "what non P-5 can you add that would not cause FSU, Clemson, GT, NC State, and VT to erupt over the inability to sell tickets for said game?" That's before you get to the question of actually making money for the conference.

That leaves Navy, Cincinnati, Tulane, and USF. Academically and culturally those four present no problems.

Tulane would be considered.

The issue for Tulane is their off and on commitment to sports. Do you trust them not to crawfish a third time on big time football? Otherwise their location for the ACC is ideal.

Their location in New Orleans and their academic status are a plus. While LSU would likely be pissed - it would add an ACC/SEC rivalry even if LSU refused to play them because it would facilitate talk.

FSU and GT have to not be opposed.

Navy would be considered.

The issue for Navy is not the return to the old standing order - http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/do...ro-sports. The ACC would take Navy for non-basketball sports no matter how bad their football became because they offer intangibles such as their games with ND and Army. Navy also pokes a finger into MD's eye.

But it's a Navy decision.

UVa and VT have to not be opposed (and they aren't) and ND would need to sponsor them.

Cincy would be considered.

Cincy's biggest problem is that their geography makes them third banana in KY and Ohio, and fourth banana in Indiana. As with Tulane and LSU, it would add to a Cincy-Ohio State "talking rivalry".

Louisville and ND have to not be opposed

USF would be considered.

USF is the leading non P-5 Florida school and their research portfolio is respected.

Miami and FSU have to not be opposed and one of the two have to sponsor them.

There are worse places than Tampa/St. Pete.


"Not being opposed" and "considering" are not the same as wanting.

ECU, Temple, UConn, USF, - these are all non-starters for the ACC.

Since there is probably no way to cleanly part up the B12, who the ACC would "consider" is predicated in part by who in the B12 can't get a ride. The ACC would not reject Texas, OU, Kansas, TCU, or Iowa State out of hand. At the size level of 18, WVa might finally have a chance in the ACC - but that's looking into a murky future world.

Here's a more interesting question - if Chicago and Johns Hopkins wanted to field a P-5 football team, would the Big 10 acquiesce?

Other than New Mexico and a P16 scenario, it seems unlikely that any of the ACC, SEC, B10, or P12 actually add a non P-5.

I get you don't like UConn, but according to all reports UConn to the ACC was discussed when Louisville actually got the invite. And I'm not saying we should have got in over Louisville, Louisville does a great job with their athletic dept and they deserve to be a power school, I'm just saying it was discussed at a high level according to reports.

I don't care for Connecticut (no offense) but I have them pegged at the top of current, non-power schools that would fit best in a power conference along with Cincinnati.

I have no problem with somebody not liking Connecticut or UConn, to each his own. On this board we aren't popular, I just wanted to point out that we were in ACC conversations or everybody at ESPN, FOX, CBS is full of...

(07-31-2017 02:38 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 02:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 02:07 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:18 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ...would your power conference legitimately consider?

Seriously, are there any non-power schools that could contend for a spot in your conference?

Cincinnati to the ACC or SEC? Connecticut to the B1G or ACC? UNLV or New Mexico to the PAC? Anyone to the XII or is it a dead man walking?

The answer to this question is a question "what non P-5 can you add that would not cause FSU, Clemson, GT, NC State, and VT to erupt over the inability to sell tickets for said game?" That's before you get to the question of actually making money for the conference.

That leaves Navy, Cincinnati, Tulane, and USF. Academically and culturally those four present no problems.

Tulane would be considered.

The issue for Tulane is their off and on commitment to sports. Do you trust them not to crawfish a third time on big time football? Otherwise their location for the ACC is ideal.

Their location in New Orleans and their academic status are a plus. While LSU would likely be pissed - it would add an ACC/SEC rivalry even if LSU refused to play them because it would facilitate talk.

FSU and GT have to not be opposed.

Navy would be considered.

The issue for Navy is not the return to the old standing order - http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/do...ro-sports. The ACC would take Navy for non-basketball sports no matter how bad their football became because they offer intangibles such as their games with ND and Army. Navy also pokes a finger into MD's eye.

But it's a Navy decision.

UVa and VT have to not be opposed (and they aren't) and ND would need to sponsor them.

Cincy would be considered.

Cincy's biggest problem is that their geography makes them third banana in KY and Ohio, and fourth banana in Indiana. As with Tulane and LSU, it would add to a Cincy-Ohio State "talking rivalry".

Louisville and ND have to not be opposed

USF would be considered.

USF is the leading non P-5 Florida school and their research portfolio is respected.

Miami and FSU have to not be opposed and one of the two have to sponsor them.

There are worse places than Tampa/St. Pete.


"Not being opposed" and "considering" are not the same as wanting.

ECU, Temple, UConn, USF, - these are all non-starters for the ACC.

Since there is probably no way to cleanly part up the B12, who the ACC would "consider" is predicated in part by who in the B12 can't get a ride. The ACC would not reject Texas, OU, Kansas, TCU, or Iowa State out of hand. At the size level of 18, WVa might finally have a chance in the ACC - but that's looking into a murky future world.

Here's a more interesting question - if Chicago and Johns Hopkins wanted to field a P-5 football team, would the Big 10 acquiesce?

Other than New Mexico and a P16 scenario, it seems unlikely that any of the ACC, SEC, B10, or P12 actually add a non P-5.

I get you don't like UConn, but according to all reports UConn to the ACC was discussed when Louisville actually got the invite. And I'm not saying we should have got in over Louisville, Louisville does a great job with their athletic dept and they deserve to be a power school, I'm just saying it was discussed at a high level according to reports.

I don't care for Connecticut (no offense) but I have them pegged at the top of current, non-power schools that would fit best in a power conference along with Cincinnati.

I have no problem with somebody not liking Connecticut or UConn, to each his own. On this board we aren't popular, I just wanted to point out that we were in ACC conversations or everybody at ESPN, FOX, CBS is full of...

Y'all definitely were. I remember being shocked hearing about Louisville and Rutgers leaving the American before Connecticut. Not that those schools shouldn't be where they are, it just surprised me.

(07-31-2017 02:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Y'all definitely were. I remember being shocked hearing about Louisville and Rutgers leaving the American before Connecticut. Not that those schools shouldn't be where they are, it just surprised me.

Its a perfect example of football and DMA trumping basketball in terms of driving conference realignment. I'm honestly surprised that Houston and Rice hadn't made jumps sooner/or at all.

(07-31-2017 03:13 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 02:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Y'all definitely were. I remember being shocked hearing about Louisville and Rutgers leaving the American before Connecticut. Not that those schools shouldn't be where they are, it just surprised me.

Its a perfect example of football and DMA trumping basketball in terms of driving conference realignment. I'm honestly surprised that Houston and Rice hadn't made jumps sooner/or at all.

Houston, I agree. Rice has de-emphasized sports (outside of baseball) to such an extent that they aren't attractive athletically. They could become Northwestern-esce (private school, big market, strong academics), but it would take effort and money on their part.

(07-12-2017 05:35 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I doubt the Power 5 will take anyone. If Boise St wasn't upgraded to the PAC 12, upgrading anyone else is dreaming.

Boise State has several problems with being upgraded into the PAC-12.

1. Academics - All PAC-12 schools are National Universities (USA Today) in academics. Boise State is not. Under the Carnegie System, All PAC-12 schools are Tier 1 ("Very High Research") Research Universities. Boise State is a Tier 3 ("Moderate Research Activities") under the Carnegie classification system.

2. Market Size - Every other team either has, or shares, a top 35 national market (#2 Los Angeles, #6 San Francisco, #12 Phoenix, #14 Seattle, #17 Denver, #25 Portland, #34 Salt Lake City) as the primary market in their state. Boise State has Boise, which is #106.

3. Divisional. The PAC-12 would never really expand, because their football divisions already take them away southern California as much as possible. In order to expand, the PAC-12 would need to really go into the PAC-16, with a population and recruiting center to counteract the population center of California. Ultimately, the PAC-12, if it would expand, would want to goto 16 teams, with an east-west split, therefore reuniting the old PAC-8 as one division. Boise State does not bring anything towards that goal.

PAC-12 would never really consider Boise State.

(08-02-2017 12:55 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 05:35 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I doubt the Power 5 will take anyone. If Boise St wasn't upgraded to the PAC 12, upgrading anyone else is dreaming.

Boise State has several problems with being upgraded into the PAC-12.

1. Academics - All PAC-12 schools are National Universities (USA Today) in academics. Boise State is not. Under the Carnegie System, All PAC-12 schools are Tier 1 ("Very High Research") Research Universities. Boise State is a Tier 3 ("Moderate Research Activities") under the Carnegie classification system.

2. Market Size - Every other team either has, or shares, a top 35 national market (#2 Los Angeles, #6 San Francisco, #12 Phoenix, #14 Seattle, #17 Denver, #25 Portland, #34 Salt Lake City) as the primary market in their state. Boise State has Boise, which is #106.

3. Divisional. The PAC-12 would never really expand, because their football divisions already take them away southern California as much as possible. In order to expand, the PAC-12 would need to really go into the PAC-16, with a population and recruiting center to counteract the population center of California. Ultimately, the PAC-12, if it would expand, would want to goto 16 teams, with an east-west split, therefore reuniting the old PAC-8 as one division. Boise State does not bring anything towards that goal.

PAC-12 would never really consider Boise State.

Academics would be the only reason. IMHO you have automatic no votes form the following: USC, UCLA, Stanford and the Arizona Schools(assuming they went to a East-west alignment). The snobs in that Conference would feel that they are lowering themselves to add them....

(07-09-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ...would your power conference legitimately consider?

Seriously, are there any non-power schools that could contend for a spot in your conference?

Cincinnati to the ACC or SEC? Connecticut to the B1G or ACC? UNLV or New Mexico to the PAC? Anyone to the XII or is it a dead man walking?

I honestly don't see any of the non-power schools on the B1G's radar. The only exception might be if they're only able to land KS in realignment and want to even out the divisions. In that case, I could see adding UConn, but short of that.....

I also don't see the SEC paying much attention to them either unless it's a scenario similar to the B1G's above.

As for the ACC, it would depend on what ND wants to do. If ND wants a non-power school (say Navy) to get an invite, they will, outside of that, maybe UConn or Cincy (just to get into B1G country).

The PAC is a different story. Assuming they miss swing and miss on the big boys in realignment, it will depend on their mindset. BYU would be a nice addition but who knows how the "intellectuals" will react to their strict codes. After that, CSU? Boise? Air Force? Maybe take a flier on Houston?

(08-02-2017 06:49 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ...would your power conference legitimately consider?

Seriously, are there any non-power schools that could contend for a spot in your conference?

Cincinnati to the ACC or SEC? Connecticut to the B1G or ACC? UNLV or New Mexico to the PAC? Anyone to the XII or is it a dead man walking?

I honestly don't see any of the non-power schools on the B1G's radar. The only exception might be if they're only able to land KS in realignment and want to even out the divisions. In that case, I could see adding UConn, but short of that.....

I also don't see the SEC paying much attention to them either unless it's a scenario similar to the B1G's above.

As for the ACC, it would depend on what ND wants to do. If ND wants a non-power school (say Navy) to get an invite, they will, outside of that, maybe UConn or Cincy (just to get into B1G country).

The PAC is a different story. Assuming they miss swing and miss on the big boys in realignment, it will depend on their mindset. BYU would be a nice addition but who knows how the "intellectuals" will react to their strict codes. After that, CSU? Boise? Air Force? Maybe take a flier on Houston?

UNC, FSU, GT, Miami, Clemson, NCSU, and VT index against the SEC, and Duke, WF, and probably UVA are along for the ride. There's no advantage to taking a hit to hurt the B1G more. It would just widen the gap to their benchmark (the SEC).

Tulane would need $500m just in facilities to catch up to Wake Forest. The horrid sight lines on TV for Tulane's new stadium when it opened showed a SEVERE lack of vision and leadership in the athletic department. You finally go back to playing in an on campus stadium .... and nobody bothered to ask about TV angles?

I like the idea of Tulane. I like the foothold it would give in SEC country. But that is a really heavy investment just to break even with Wake just in facilities. Tulane would essentially need a $1b capital campaign to endow scholarships and build facilities and pay for coaches. Most schools -- even academic heavy hitters -- take a decade or two of concerted effort to raise $1b for academic purposes. And because it's academic, that usually comes with all kinds of grant and matching help. It is difficult to see this as practical without a huge undertaking on Tulane's part. And they show incompetence in the athletic department right now ... not incredible drive and vision.

(08-02-2017 11:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Tulane would need $500m just in facilities to catch up to Wake Forest. The horrid sight lines on TV for Tulane's new stadium when it opened showed a SEVERE lack of vision and leadership in the athletic department. You finally go back to playing in an on campus stadium .... and nobody bothered to ask about TV angles?

I like the idea of Tulane. I like the foothold it would give in SEC country. But that is a really heavy investment just to break even with Wake just in facilities. Tulane would essentially need a $1b capital campaign to endow scholarships and build facilities and pay for coaches. Most schools -- even academic heavy hitters -- take a decade or two of concerted effort to raise $1b for academic purposes. And because it's academic, that usually comes with all kinds of grant and matching help. It is difficult to see this as practical without a huge undertaking on Tulane's part. And they show incompetence in the athletic department right now ... not incredible drive and vision.

TV is just a ***** unless you got lucky with an older stadium or built with TV in mind.

Accommodating ESPN is a mess. They demanded to set up in a spot that would require relocating several season ticket holders and the AD was about to bless it until someone reminded him the governor would be one of the people relocated. He opted to relocate ESPN instead.