(10-30-2025 11:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:15 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 10:07 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 09:25 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 09:24 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ....
I think the big10 adding Miami and USF as a pair would be a strong addition, but around here people seem to think that USF would be reaching above their "class" for that. Good enough for ACC but not the big10, or some such.

It's probably because Rutgers came from the AAC to the BIG and became a doormat for the conference. Same with Maryland. BIG fans probably don't want a repeat of that with South Florida.

Maryland was poached from the ACC (today’s M2). In that sense it is analogous to recent P2 additions from the PAC or B12.

Rutgers was called up from the American (today’s G6).

I guess the ACC poached FSU from the SEC when they had an invite in 1990. Ouch!

LOL! Tell me, was that a blessing or a curse?

Not funny, JR.

(10-30-2025 07:03 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 04:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  Every expansion has an upside or they wouldn't have been made, but we have come to the fork in the road where any expansion may carry downside as well.
The SEC has been so smart and consistent about their choices, but any further expansion no carry risks.

Of the four schools oft mentioned (FSU, Clemson, Carolina and UVa) for SEC expansion, each pair carries risk.

Florida State and Clemson would fit like a glove into SEC culture, but these are the two schools the SEC needs the least.
The SEC already owns the markets, or at least a good share where those schools are located. Adding FSU and Clemson only mean increased competition for resources for very little increase in revenue.
Carolina and Virginia on the other hand are total opposites. Neither are cultural fits for the SEC, but the potential market means that the pair could offer a financial boon to the conference. The downside is that the uneasy fit could create friction within the conference which is something the SEC does not experience now.

The other overriding negative is that taking all four weakens the asset value of the ACC and reduces the profitability of ESPN.

A real quandary.

Missouri and Oklahoma don’t fit the SEC culture but here we are.

UNC and Virginia get the SEC into new markets and new states. Florida State does get them a bigger share of one of the biggest states but it is still duplicating what they already have. Clemson does nothing to expand the footprint or market share. A bigger name than South Carolina but still in a small state with no major cities.

North Carolina and Virginia are in bigger markets that are growing. It gets the league into the DC area. Neither are football blue bloods but are at least usually decent. Improves the basketball status by adding a true blue blood and another with a good history and fairly recent championship.

The SEC culture of 2025 is a bit different than the SEC culture of 1990 though, isn't it? 6 new schools, 5 of them from the old SWC or Big 8. Missouri has plenty in common with Arkansas, OU, A&M and Texas. OU has plenty in common with everyone in the SEC, they always had an SEC mentality, their biggest rival is now in the SEC with them, they just happen to be in the plains instead of the South. But not by much, they're 2.5 hrs from Dallas, which is solidly SEC country these days.

Speaking of which, most of us (myself included) tend to downplay Culture and focus on $$$ in Realignment, but an obvious issue with adding too many schools is risking a significant shift of the original culture. PSU and Nebraska were excellent fits for the B1G in all ways, Culturally, Athletically, Academically, Geographically, all of it. However, their latest 6 seem to have been more reactive than proactive moves. As JR has mentioned numerous times, the SEC has had their eyes on the State of Texas for decades, Arkansas was the bridge and now they've fully conquered the territory, Culturally, Athletically and Geographically. But that culture is a bit different today, not so different as to cause a big ruckus, but still, it's a bit different, right? How much greater is that impact on the B1G with first Rutgers and Maryland, then 4 from the Pac all joining within the past 11 years? I've said since the FSU rumors started up years ago that both of the P2 need to take some time to digest our latest meals. Well, it looks like we're mostly doing fine with that (other than a certain Trojan causing B1G indigestion), but there will be concerns from University Presidents about expanding again too soon and too aggressively.

(10-30-2025 11:45 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:42 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  I do not mean to be insulting or antagonist with what I am about to say because you obviously love the B1G, but I seriously doubt there is ANY school that would choose the B1G over the SEC at this point. Why? Because the SEC is killing it in the viewership numbers, and no other conference is close.

The SEC is putting out nailbiter thrillers each and every week with SEC conference game margin of victories comparable to NFL games. In contrast, the B1G is offering blowouts by their 3 powers, and most of the rest B1G conference have less than stellar ratings. With the SEC now having 12 traditional powers, plus every one of the other 12 schools being competitive in most of their conference games each week, including 3 of the non-traditional powers vying for playoff spots, the SEC is rolling Biggly.

There was a fear that the SEC having too many alpha dogs would ruin the pack, but now it appears it has just made the conference stronger and has produced an even better product. If this continues, the SEC is going to get paid like no conference has ever been paid before.

Furthermore, with the non-traditional power schools now holding their own against the traditional powers, the SEC now has 16 strong Bullies that are going to be even more marketable. Even our 4 schools with the most losses, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State and South Carolina usually BARELY lose, and often in dramatic fashion. In short, every SEC conference football game is becoming must see TV. To be honest, the B1G is starting to pale in comparison, and I think that is a vibe being felt across the country.

I don't think it's about Vibes so much as it's about, as our friend Frank the Tank would say, "think like a President". If I'm a University President, and I'm considering switching conferences for Athletic reasons, and I have a reasonable expectation that either of the P2 would be interested in adding my school, then I'm going to compare what each of the P2 could bring to my school:

1. What's my school's expected pay going to be from making this move? Which P2 will pay us more in the long run? Will the payouts be close, or will one or the other be likely to pay significantly more in the long run?
2. What's the geography like? How much worse will my travel be in one of the P2 vs the other?
3. Should I factor Academics into this? Would joining one or the other Conference offer my school a way to advance our Academic standing? Any Academic financial considerations?

For the ACC schools, #1 and 2 favor the SEC, while #3 might favor the B1G somewhat. However, AAU membership carries more clout than B1G membership, and most of the schools under consideration or AAU or could hope to be soon. If I'm FSU, do I think that a B1G move would further my AAU cause, or would I get vetoed by Michigan and Wisconsin, just like they helped get Nebraska kicked from the AAU right after they joined the B1G?

The problem for the B1G when looking at anybody in the M2 is that the SEC has a significant advantage with the long time ACC schools, and both the P2 have been giving Big 12 schools the cold shoulders for years. I don't blame Stechs for his thinking that other factors could matter more to some schools than others, but the schools that they might matter more to are schools that the SEC wouldn't want anyway. Schools like Cal or Stanford, for example. Great schools, but really far outside of SEC's region, awkward cultural fits, and unlikely to move the financial needle in the right direction for us.

Just 3 little words Bryan are all that will determine any of this: money, exposure, proximity. AAU schools as you noted all share grants with other AAU schools and sometimes with non-AAU schools which have extreme expertise in a single discipline.

The money will be comparable for TV rights. The total ledger and sports fit, especially due to diamond sports is with the SEC. Exposure is solidly in the SEC's favor. Proximity likely matters to all ACC schools save Virginia which is a wash between the two conferences' main body of schools.

The Florida to Virginia schools will depend on who is in power. Sometimes its the president. Sometimes its the board. And whoever is the decision maker will pick.
Anybody north of the Mason Dixon line or west of Oklahoma would choose the Big Ten if they had the option. Anybody in Texas or Oklahoma would choose the SEC. Nobody would turn either down if it was their only offer.

Virginia Tech would seem to be an SEC leaning school. But back in 2016 they had a real anti-SEC president. Same for FSU. Maybe a few you could predict with a lot of certainty regardless of the president. Given a choice, Duke would go with the Big Ten. Clemson and Louisville would go with the SEC (not that they would necessarily have a choice). So with FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, UVA, NCSU, VPI, it would depend.

Realistically, anyone other than FSU, Miami, UVA and UNC are extremely unlikely to have a choice.

Geography would trump everything for the ACC schools though, just as it does for the 4c in the Big 12, just as it did for OUT, and just as the Pac 12 thought it would. In the Pac 12's defense, geography only ceased to matter when there was a $30m+ gap between what they could make in the Pac 12 and what they could make in the B1G. It's impossible to see a large gap favoring the B1G post-2034; if anything, there is likely to be a sizeable gap favoring the SEC. I wonder how many subscriptions Netflix or Amazon could generate if all these rabid SEC fans needed to sign up and stay signed up to watch SEC State U every Saturday? Throw in the geographical proximity, and the only way it could make sense for any ACC schools to join the B1G would be for a bunch of them to join as a group. Not so for the SEC, we could add 1 here or 1 there and they'd fit perfectly into our footprint, or expand it a bit perhaps in UNC's case ofc. I'm skeptical that we'd make a "defensive" play to add certain schools just b/c if we're already smoking them on the field and on the tv now, that certainly wouldn't change if they started losing more games in the B1G and playing their games on CBS and NBC instead of ABC and ESPN.

It's not about chest thumping and saying that the SEC is the best. Certainly I think that it is, but it doesn't need to be for the ACC schools we'd want to prefer the SEC. Just as the B1G is the natural choice for the former Pac schools, all things being equal or close to equal. The only 2 that I think could legitimately evoke interest from both of us and could go either way are Miami and Colorado, though Colorado's fortunes seem to wax and wane with Deion's health.

If you are talking about 2 schools moving, that is probably true. However if it's 4or 6 schools out of the ACC moving it would make any difference which conference that group went to because they would form their own division/group/pocket or what ever you wanted to call them.

When university presidents talk about a cultural fit, they are thinking of campus communities.

It’s not about glib regional grits/guacamole/cheesesteak stereotypes (‘Is Texas really South? I think of Texas as more yada yada yada.’).

It’s about how members of one campus community are likely to feel when visiting another campus, and about the possibility of productive longer-term affiliations emerging from the interactions. (‘Would our students enjoy a visit to the campus in Austin? Would they be more likely to return for SXSW?’ etc).

(10-30-2025 08:28 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 08:19 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 07:17 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 06:40 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I think 14 bids to the Big Dance is enough of a cultural fit for Carolina. We’ll see if it was a one off or the way of the future.

That is a great one liner.

Here is a thought, if 14 or close to it is the new norm, what will be the number after expansion? If the SEC brings in 4 schools, is it 16, 17? At 16 the SEC has a quarter of a 64 team NCAA MBB Tournament. Probably the same for WBB.

Now what happens if the SEC goes to 24 and gets 20 or 21 teams in the NCAA MBB Tournament? That is practically a third of 64, and if the MBB Tournament (Maybe the NCAA part gets dropped) goes to 72 that is still over 25% of the teams. What effect on the sport will that cause? If it causes an even greater vacuuming of top BB talent at some point the entire conference gets invites and decides who else gets invitations. Does the B1G still have as much leverage on BB post-season decisions as the SEC at that point?

Basketball is not football. We collectively outspent everybody else last season by a mile, but it remains to be seen if we can do that every year. My opinion is that the BE, ACC and B1G will all significantly increase basketball spending going forward, and we’ll settle in around the top of the heap but not necessarily #1. Neither we, nor the B1G, nor the 2 of us combined can dictate policy to the others right now, and it’s not currently worth it for us to add enough basball schools to change that.

I didn't say anything about adding basketball schools. The SEC could become the elite grouping of basketball brands without adding basketball schools. That is my point.

There is little reason to expect any other conference will march the SEC in BB spending. Individual programs will, but not conference-wide. I think most B1G schools will have to spend more on football to chase the SEC and its own top tier football products..

That means the SEC BB conference games become more valuable and most other conferences games less valuable, which could cause greater separation in the favor of the SEC.

Certainly possible, and I hope that you're right. But basketball isn't football. We've been generally somewhere between #3 and #5 for decades in mbb, right? We can point to our football tv numbers and attendance figures and say "sure, we didn't win the title last 2 years but it just means more" and everybody else has to shut up and take it b/c they know we're right. Well, it doesn't just mean more in basketball here, outside of Kentucky. It means more in Madison Square Garden, and Michigan St, and Gonzaga, and Kansas, Indiana and LA than it does in most of the SEC. Look at the attendance numbers in the B1G for mbb, they dwarf ours. Look at how much value Fox places on their basketball games. We can continue to swamp our foes with all of our money cannons for a decade and that will do a great job of bringing us the best players, but it would fade away the moment that UConn, Indiana, UNC or Kansas offered our best players the same money. Which is why I said that I expect us to be near the top, perhaps even #1 for the long term, but dominance will be quite tough to come by b/c "it just means more" in a whole lot of non-SEC locations at present. Perhaps that's why JR talks so often about shoring up our basketball. UNC and Kansas would go a long way in that regard...

(10-30-2025 08:45 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 08:24 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 08:13 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 08:01 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 07:03 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  Missouri and Oklahoma don’t fit the SEC culture but here we are.

UNC and Virginia get the SEC into new markets and new states. Florida State does get them a bigger share of one of the biggest states but it is still duplicating what they already have. Clemson does nothing to expand the footprint or market share. A bigger name than South Carolina but still in a small state with no major cities.

North Carolina and Virginia are in bigger markets that are growing. It gets the league into the DC area. Neither are football blue bloods but are at least usually decent. Improves the basketball status by adding a true blue blood and another with a good history and fairly recent championship.

The times have changed. Markets are valuable, but national brands are more more valuable. But now even national brands, which had become the most important valuation variable the last few months, has now been supplanted as the top value addition criteria, imo.

As of now and moving forward, there is nothing more valuable in college sports than a football program that can produce a quality playoff caliber football product at least every few years and a competitive team against the best competition most years. Nothing.

Because what we are now seeing with viewership numbers the most important variable for a school's valuation is are they competitive against top competition. We might not be that far away from viewership numbers where a .500 record school that keeps losing close games generating almost as much interest when playing an .800 record school as a matchup of two .800 schools if everyone realizes the .500 record school has a very good chance of winning. Or if not winning, at least almost beating the .800 record school and thereby disrupting the apple cart for several teams inside and outside the SEC.

While it has been said any team can beat any other on any given Saturday, in the SEC it has become a weekly occurrence for every team. That means almost every game is as important as any other, and this will cause a massive valuation surge for the SEC.

And not just for the SEC. For example, if Cig keeps getting Indiana into the playoffs, how much more valuable is Michigan or Penn St over Indiana? When does Indiana become more valuable if either school misses the playoffs a few years in a row? Think about it for a bit before you default to the old world view of college football perception. The shear massive valuations for present quality football product and meaningful games dwarfs pasts considerations like tradition and the size of a team's fanbase. What matters now is not how many of your fans will watch your game but how many across the nation will. Brands garner more viewers, but elite football games garner more. Again, look at Indiana.

The college football world is changing fast. The new valuation analysis is:

Winning football programs > National Brands > Markets.

Whule all theee are important, we may find out in a few years that they have become the same thing.

Don't forget that media partners pay for basketball too. Even though the lion's share of the basketball playoffs may go to the ncaa, the media partners will want a good stable of schools to select matchups from.

And there are other concerns too, though sports fans tend to be less interested in things like institutional fit, or partnering up for non-sports-related projects. And in general, sports helps schools market themselves, which is potentially worth far more than most media deals.

Sure, but football money is now dwarfing everything else. Academics and basketball are now tiebreaker considerations.

Don't listen to the hype.

Research dollars can dwarf entire media deals.

Didn't matter to Texas when they chose the SEC over the B1G. Hasn't seemed to hurt my Aggies, Miami or Florida, either. Perhaps the BTAA is a bit overblown? Perhaps the AAU is far more important as an allegedly impartial barometer of Academic clout? Perhaps Michigan and Wisconsin were incredibly short-sighted when they kicked Nebraska out of the AAU soon after Nebraska joined the B1G? Heck, in today's political climate, it's probably just as good to be associated with Florida, Texas and Vanderbilt as it is to be associated with Northwestern, Michigan and UCLA.

(10-30-2025 09:29 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 09:25 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 09:24 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 09:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 08:49 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Different schools tend to prioritize different things in different ways.

That said, I think the big10 adding Kansas and Duke would be a huge step in the right direction.

If the SEC added UNC that would split the top 4 brands. That said, the SEC position has been quite clear for a long time with regard to North Carolina and Virginia. Preference #1 has been that a healthy ACC is the best protection of the SEC's markets in the South. Position #2 is that if the ACC becomes unstable the SEC wants North Carolina, would take Duke to get them, and wants Virginia. They see it not only as a market addition but as the best defense of their more Southern markets.

The caveat is that when it was conceived as a plan the Big Ten had no stated desire to be anything but contiguous. There is more to consider now. But taking FSU with those aforementioned 3 is considered a viable defense. Nobody believes they would take Clemson, Georgia Tech doesn't harm the SEC's dominance in Georgia, and Miami has never been ours anyway. The SEC gets the most bang for the least shares by taking Duke, F.S.U., North Carolina and Virginia. 2 top 4 hoops brands, 1 football champion, and a strong regional hoops brand and market.

The interesting thing for the future is South Florida. You can't escape having to evaluate the potential of an AAU school in Florida with 50,000 plus enrollment in a large DMA even if they represent less than 3% of the viewership now. Put the right patch on their jersey and their numbers go way up. If the SEC went to 22 with Clemson and South Florida, we'd be a lot better off for the not too distant future.

When Boomer's are gone, USF will be on equal footing with FSU and UF in that none of them will have the number of deep pocket donors they have now.

I don't necessarily disagree with Lurker's emphasis on football as being the most profitable pathway for the immediate future. I disagree with him for the SEC's long-range plans. Football at the grass roots level is running into headwinds, as are the world economies. Basketball is profitable too, but cheaper to produce. I believe the SEC's long-range strategy is sound. Add branding to football but add more branding to basketball so that the conference dominates ratings in both sports. And if all of those you add have strong diamond sports too, then all the better. The SEC is best positioned for the minimizing of travel and the maximization of viewers without having to spread their brand coast to coast, because coast to coast already watches their brand anyway.

As you know, I've long been a proponent of USF in realignment, even before they gained AAU status. I remember linking to some decade-old development plan they had. Which, apparently, they've achieved.

I think the big10 adding Miami and USF as a pair would be a strong addition, but around here people seem to think that USF would be reaching above their "class" for that. Good enough for ACC but not the big10, or some such.

It's probably because Rutgers came from the AAC to the BIG and became a doormat for the conference. Same with Maryland. BIG fans probably don't want a repeat of that with South Florida.

Well, as I presume you know, both those schools were valuable additions. If USF turned out to be at least as valuable as those, it'd be a good addition.

USF is a rising power, but they're at best tied-4 in Florida. Rutgers, otoh, completely dominates the 9.5m population New Jersey and is in fact only 50 miles from NYC. Is Rutgers a football Power? Ofc not. But if they were #2 instead of Indiana right now, the B1G's numbers would be skyrocketing. It's easy to justify Rutgers based on their insane, out of this world potential, and even now they more than pull their weight financially for the Conference. With USF, the B1G could keep an eye on them, leave them stashed in the M2, then potentially talk to them in the 2030s or 2040s if USF continues to grow.

(10-30-2025 11:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 10:33 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 08:45 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Don't listen to the hype.

Research dollars can dwarf entire media deals.

Research dollars are not affected by athletic media deals. That argument is a B1G bluster of misinformation.

‘Academics’ enter the picture in athletic conference membership in the sense that university leaders care about the regular company their students keep.

Their students will be visiting the campuses of conference partners and partners’ students will be visiting theirs. They know this. And they know there are a limited number of conference spots to offer. So they hesitate to burn a spot on just any school who hired a hot coach last year. They look for the most value they can get in what should become a very long-term arrangement.

Presidents like to be associated with universities whose grad schools they would be happy to see their own students enter, and whose students they would like to see do graduate work at their place.

Alumni offices know these kinds of relationships pay dividends in the long run. Other considerations are important, too, but university leaders do watch this.

Towards that end, they prefer campuses that make members of their own campus community feel welcome (sports rivalries notwithstanding) and that invite repeat visits. Cultural fit.

That’s mainly how ‘academics’ work in realignment.

Yes.

Setting aside other factors, it helps give schools like Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, and really, any AAU school, a first, second, and third look.

If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

(10-30-2025 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 10:33 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 08:45 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Don't listen to the hype.

Research dollars can dwarf entire media deals.

Research dollars are not affected by athletic media deals. That argument is a B1G bluster of misinformation.

‘Academics’ enter the picture in athletic conference membership in the sense that university leaders care about the regular company their students keep.

Their students will be visiting the campuses of conference partners and partners’ students will be visiting theirs. They know this. And they know there are a limited number of conference spots to offer. So they hesitate to burn a spot on just any school who hired a hot coach last year. They look for the most value they can get in what should become a very long-term arrangement.

Presidents like to be associated with universities whose grad schools they would be happy to see their own students enter, and whose students they would like to see do graduate work at their place.

Alumni offices know these kinds of relationships pay dividends in the long run. Other considerations are important, too, but university leaders do watch this.

Towards that end, they prefer campuses that make members of their own campus community feel welcome (sports rivalries notwithstanding) and that invite repeat visits. Cultural fit.

That’s mainly how ‘academics’ work in realignment.

Yes.

Setting aside other factors, it helps give schools like Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, and really, any AAU school, a first, second, and third look.

If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 10:33 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Research dollars are not affected by athletic media deals. That argument is a B1G bluster of misinformation.

‘Academics’ enter the picture in athletic conference membership in the sense that university leaders care about the regular company their students keep.

Their students will be visiting the campuses of conference partners and partners’ students will be visiting theirs. They know this. And they know there are a limited number of conference spots to offer. So they hesitate to burn a spot on just any school who hired a hot coach last year. They look for the most value they can get in what should become a very long-term arrangement.

Presidents like to be associated with universities whose grad schools they would be happy to see their own students enter, and whose students they would like to see do graduate work at their place.

Alumni offices know these kinds of relationships pay dividends in the long run. Other considerations are important, too, but university leaders do watch this.

Towards that end, they prefer campuses that make members of their own campus community feel welcome (sports rivalries notwithstanding) and that invite repeat visits. Cultural fit.

That’s mainly how ‘academics’ work in realignment.

Yes.

Setting aside other factors, it helps give schools like Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, and really, any AAU school, a first, second, and third look.

If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:05 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  ‘Academics’ enter the picture in athletic conference membership in the sense that university leaders care about the regular company their students keep.

Their students will be visiting the campuses of conference partners and partners’ students will be visiting theirs. They know this. And they know there are a limited number of conference spots to offer. So they hesitate to burn a spot on just any school who hired a hot coach last year. They look for the most value they can get in what should become a very long-term arrangement.

Presidents like to be associated with universities whose grad schools they would be happy to see their own students enter, and whose students they would like to see do graduate work at their place.

Alumni offices know these kinds of relationships pay dividends in the long run. Other considerations are important, too, but university leaders do watch this.

Towards that end, they prefer campuses that make members of their own campus community feel welcome (sports rivalries notwithstanding) and that invite repeat visits. Cultural fit.

That’s mainly how ‘academics’ work in realignment.

Yes.

Setting aside other factors, it helps give schools like Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, and really, any AAU school, a first, second, and third look.

If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

(10-30-2025 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Yes.

Setting aside other factors, it helps give schools like Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, and really, any AAU school, a first, second, and third look.

If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

Since we're mangling words, I'll try too ; )

post hoc ergo propter hoc

(10-30-2025 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 11:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Yes.

Setting aside other factors, it helps give schools like Stanford, Duke, Georgia Tech, and really, any AAU school, a first, second, and third look.

If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

You have a more damning proof positive than merely Nebraska and Oregon. The broadening of the understanding of "academics" to include FSU because they need a way to attempt to capture part of the Florida market. That's a clear deviation from their norm and a degradation of it to boot.

I intend no slight to FSU which is striving for AAU status, and they are not the first to be granted such a verbal boon by the Big Ten. Prior to the attainment of an AAU standing Notre Dame received a similar pass on that "requirement" for acceptance.

So, as they said in The Pirates of the Caribbean, "The Pirate's Code is more or less guidelines rather than rules!" Perhaps Barbosa should replace Petitti as commissioner?

(10-30-2025 01:17 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

Since we're mangling words, I'll try too ; )

post hoc ergo propter hoc

I mangled nothing. I've only repeated what I've heard from others about the B1G's preferences. Ask Frank the Tank how surprised he was when the B1G didn't take Cal and Stanford. He's never said this here that I can recall, but I suspect that Oregon's invitation coupled with Cal and Stanford's stiffarm is part of the reason that Frank is so certain that the B1G would happily take FSU despite their lack of the AAU imprimatur.

I know some Latin, too.

Per Unitatum Vis

That phrase works just as well for the SEC as it does for my Aggie Corps of Cadets.

(10-30-2025 01:17 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If Academics was anything other than a disqualifier, Oregon and Nebraska wouldn't be in the B1G.

I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

Since we're mangling words, I'll try too ; )

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Principio Elenchi

Pox Populi!!

(10-30-2025 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:17 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

Since we're mangling words, I'll try too ; )

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Principio Elenchi

lol.

Well said.

And yes, you're right, I could have read past the mangled use of negatives to infer intent, but I didn't want to presume.

My point was/is that A is not necessarily a causation or correlation with B.

Or in other words, Stanford academics is very unlikely a reason why Stanford was passed over by the big10. We've heard several suggested reasons postulated, but none were due to academics. ergo - post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Incidentally, I learned that phrase from an episode of The West Wing.

(10-30-2025 02:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:17 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:55 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I've read that sentence multiple times, and am still confused, would you like to take another swing?

"What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

Since we're mangling words, I'll try too ; )

post hoc ergo propter hoc

I mangled nothing. I've only repeated what I've heard from others about the B1G's preferences. Ask Frank the Tank how surprised he was when the B1G didn't take Cal and Stanford. He's never said this here that I can recall, but I suspect that Oregon's invitation coupled with Cal and Stanford's stiffarm is part of the reason that Frank is so certain that the B1G would happily take FSU despite their lack of the AAU imprimatur.

I know some Latin, too.

Per Unitatum Vis

That phrase works just as well for the SEC as it does for my Aggie Corps of Cadets.

Nike got Orygun in. Nebraska is a head-scratcher.

(10-30-2025 05:13 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 02:56 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:17 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 01:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  "What Gus is saying here is that the issue is monkey!" "What Gus is saying is that academics are an excuse for not taking someone, and if they truly mattered Nebraska and Oregon would not be in the Big 10."

Thank you for that clarification. I would go further and say that if Academics was anything other than a "disqualifier", Stanford or Cal would have gotten in ahead of Oregon a couple of years ago. The B1G has used AAU membership as a sufficient standard of "Academic excellence" to consider schools for decades. Frank has talked about it often over the years, at least as far back as his blog in 2009, as have many other B1G fans on this board.

Since we're mangling words, I'll try too ; )

post hoc ergo propter hoc

I mangled nothing. I've only repeated what I've heard from others about the B1G's preferences. Ask Frank the Tank how surprised he was when the B1G didn't take Cal and Stanford. He's never said this here that I can recall, but I suspect that Oregon's invitation coupled with Cal and Stanford's stiffarm is part of the reason that Frank is so certain that the B1G would happily take FSU despite their lack of the AAU imprimatur.

I know some Latin, too.

Per Unitatum Vis

That phrase works just as well for the SEC as it does for my Aggie Corps of Cadets.

Nike got Orygun in. Nebraska is a head-scratcher.

Veni Vidi Vici! meanwhile Quo Vadis

I am partial to; In hoc signo vinces