(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.

Nebraska was on the tail end of one of the all time great 50 year periods in CFB. They have sold out every game at their 86k stadium since the Kennedy Administration. They won 3 National Titles in the 16 years before they joined the B1G. Yeah, a real head-scratcher.

(10-30-2025 12:28 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

But it's bad to be associated with a school that isn't even in the top 200 of US News & World Report.

(10-30-2025 06:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Nebraska was on the tail end of one of the all time great 50 year periods in CFB. They have sold out every game at their 86k stadium since the Kennedy Administration. They won 3 National Titles in the 16 years before they joined the B1G. Yeah, a real head-scratcher.

The heyday of the corn-fed brute linebackers ended a few decades ago. Recruiting pipelines to “speed” have been a challenge. Nebraska has to double down on the effort. They land some blue bloods here and there, But they will need to enhance their connections and keep such sustained.

(10-31-2025 08:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 06:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

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

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

(10-30-2025 01:17 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  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.

Nebraska was on the tail end of one of the all time great 50 year periods in CFB. They have sold out every game at their 86k stadium since the Kennedy Administration. They won 3 National Titles in the 16 years before they joined the B1G. Yeah, a real head-scratcher.

The heyday of the corn-fed brute linebackers ended a few decades ago. Recruiting pipelines to “speed” have been a challenge. Nebraska has to double down on the effort. They land some blue bloods here and there, But they will need to enhance their connections and keep such sustained.

Oh, I forgot to mention that Nebraska also pulls a lot of eyeballs on TV when they're even moderately good. They're very much the PSU of the midwest. Hardly a "head-scratcher" of an addition, as the previous poster claimed. He must be very young to be so ignorant of Nebraska's storied football history.

(10-30-2025 06:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Nebraska was on the tail end of one of the all time great 50 year periods in CFB. They have sold out every game at their 86k stadium since the Kennedy Administration. They won 3 National Titles in the 16 years before they joined the B1G. Yeah, a real head-scratcher.

Of course, but I was referring to their academic credentials, as in Orygun's case. Nike money overcame their academic short-comings. Did Nebraska's consistent sell-outs in a large stadium overcome their academic short-comings? I'm more familiar with Orygun.

Sec needs schools that are ok with losing in football but bring in new markets. Maybe be good at basketball or something. Someone that won’t freak if they go 1-8 in conference and try to pay 100 million for some random coach.

After re-reading this thread:

There really is no upside for the SEC to expand.
There are reasons for ESPN to want the SEC to add more schools, but the conference itself would not really benefit.

(11-02-2025 06:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  After re-reading this thread:

There really is no upside for the SEC to expand.
There are reasons for ESPN to want the SEC to add more schools, but the conference itself would not really benefit.

Corporate greed has killed everything meaningful, including college football.

(11-02-2025 07:02 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 06:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  After re-reading this thread:

There really is no upside for the SEC to expand.
There are reasons for ESPN to want the SEC to add more schools, but the conference itself would not really benefit.

Corporate greed pleasing a corporate has killed everything meaningful, including college football.

If one goes back a bunch of decades, it was not so much about money and pleasing a corporate entity.

More than anything, it was about scheduling and convenience. Conference schools wanted to play desirable and compatible schools within their region. Marketing focused around attendance at games and reasonable access for fans.

These coast to coast endeavors, and absorbing new members with little to no history with the members of the conference, offered no appeal in the olden days.

At least the SEC among the power conferences, has kept expansion within their footprint or by adding prominent and available schools from contiguous states. Even with doing that, a sensible, driving strategy is warranted.

With more parity and/or shifts in the outputs of ACC schools, I’m not sure either P2 conference will be aggressively trying to extract members from the ACC during the next 1 to 4 years. That’s not saying the SEC won’t expand, it may suggest a certain delay to expansion, and the modest re-ordering of potential candidates for extraction.

(11-02-2025 06:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  After re-reading this thread:

There really is no upside for the SEC to expand.
There are reasons for ESPN to want the SEC to add more schools, but the conference itself would not really benefit.

The SEC is also smart and powerful enough that it won't let ESPN drive their ship.

The coaches are the biggest losers in expansion. The more teams there are makes it harder for them to win and they are paid a lot of money and expected to win. Florida, LSU, and Arkansas will get new high paid coaches and they will be expected to win even though the SEC expansion and potential future expansion makes their jobs even harder than they already are.

(11-01-2025 10:11 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-30-2025 06:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

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

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

(10-30-2025 01:17 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  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.

Nebraska was on the tail end of one of the all time great 50 year periods in CFB. They have sold out every game at their 86k stadium since the Kennedy Administration. They won 3 National Titles in the 16 years before they joined the B1G. Yeah, a real head-scratcher.

Of course, but I was referring to their academic credentials, as in Orygun's case. Nike money overcame their academic short-comings. Did Nebraska's consistent sell-outs in a large stadium overcome their academic short-comings? I'm more familiar with Orygun.

Nebraska isn’t about the butts in seats so much as how those still translate to big tv numbers in ho-hum seasons. Nebraska is the B1G version of OU when they’re winning like OU, which they were up until the past decade.

Frank has often talked about all that Nebraska has brought to the B1G, and I’ve often jumped in to say the B1G was foolish to put Nebraska at a funding disadvantage for nearly a decade. They added Nebraska bc they were the Midwest version of PSU, but they hurt their funding so much that they turned this PSU-like school into Iowa. Now that Nebraska’s financial Death Star is fully operational, I expect they’ll start looking like PSU again.

So, yes, Nebraska brought plenty to the B1G, far more than Nike/Oregon imo. Oregon has to win 10 games a year to get on tv and boost the B1G, Nebraska has been doing it with 6-7 win seasons for a while now. Get them to 10 wins again consistently and they’re really moving the needle for the Conference.

(11-02-2025 12:40 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 06:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  After re-reading this thread:

There really is no upside for the SEC to expand.
There are reasons for ESPN to want the SEC to add more schools, but the conference itself would not really benefit.

The SEC is also smart and powerful enough that it won't let ESPN drive their ship.

JR said something that resonated with me the other day. In a nutshell, we’re fine with everything as-is, but if ACC schools start leaving, we want first pick of them. If the ACC can figure a way to stick together, we might still have the same 16 schools for decades to come. That seems unlikely today, but it’s certainly possible.

Personally I like 9 or 10 teams conferences where everyone plays each other every year. Unfortunately that ship has sailed. Now conferences seem to be expanding for TV contracts as well as keeping other conferences out of their territory. That's why the SEC and the Big will add schools in 2030. Does it make sense as far as conference cohesion, no. But that's is what's going to happen.

(11-02-2025 01:40 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Personally I like 9 or 10 teams conferences where everyone plays each other every year. Unfortunately that ship has sailed. Now conferences seem to be expanding for TV contracts as well as keeping other conferences out of their territory. That's why the SEC and the Big will add schools in 2030. Does it make sense as far as conference cohesion, no. But that's is what's going to happen.

I think you will see the return of hard divisions which will align the SEC and Big 10 in the multi auto bid CFP set-up. Each winner of the 3 or 4 divisions of a 20+ team Big 10 and SEC get an auto bid. Each division can have a CCG

(11-02-2025 01:54 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 01:40 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Personally I like 9 or 10 teams conferences where everyone plays each other every year. Unfortunately that ship has sailed. Now conferences seem to be expanding for TV contracts as well as keeping other conferences out of their territory. That's why the SEC and the Big will add schools in 2030. Does it make sense as far as conference cohesion, no. But that's is what's going to happen.

I think you will see the return of hard divisions which will align the SEC and Big 10 in the multi auto bid CFP set-up. Each winner of the 3 or 4 divisions of a 20+ team Big 10 and SEC get an auto bid. Each division can have a CCG

I don't know if we get there in the B1G, but I'd love any scheduling format where you can play everyone every other year. For the B1G, it's probably a modified version of 1-X/X that allows select teams to still play multiple annual rivalries, but cost them a game with those opponents down to 2x in 6 years from 3x in 6 years.

(11-02-2025 01:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 12:40 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 06:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  After re-reading this thread:

There really is no upside for the SEC to expand.
There are reasons for ESPN to want the SEC to add more schools, but the conference itself would not really benefit.

The SEC is also smart and powerful enough that it won't let ESPN drive their ship.

JR said something that resonated with me the other day. In a nutshell, we’re fine with everything as-is, but if ACC schools start leaving, we want first pick of them. If the ACC can figure a way to stick together, we might still have the same 16 schools for decades to come. That seems unlikely today, but it’s certainly possible.

I just don't see the ACC drawing nearly as many eye$ as before. That will cause contracts and realignment to get reviewed sooner.

(11-02-2025 01:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 12:40 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 06:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  After re-reading this thread:

There really is no upside for the SEC to expand.
There are reasons for ESPN to want the SEC to add more schools, but the conference itself would not really benefit.

The SEC is also smart and powerful enough that it won't let ESPN drive their ship.

JR said something that resonated with me the other day. In a nutshell, we’re fine with everything as-is, but if ACC schools start leaving, we want first pick of them. If the ACC can figure a way to stick together, we might still have the same 16 schools for decades to come. That seems unlikely today, but it’s certainly possible.

This seems like an unrealistic idea.

At any point the conference commissioner could contact Miami and say "we are offering you an opportunity to join our membership. However, it's contingent upon you signing an NDA until membership is accepted. And you must accept the offer within 2 hours".

And if that same offer more presented to several schools at the same time (UNC, Miami, UVA, GT, FSU). There is no way that the SEC is going to be able to counter offer all of those schools that quickly.

There's a reality here that I think a lot of people are ignoring. The conferences are not in a rush to expand like people here seem to think they are. And it's going to be about who moves first not what the ACC schools prefer.

(11-02-2025 02:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  There's a reality here that I think a lot of people are ignoring. The conferences are not in a rush to expand like people here seem to think they are. And it's going to be about who moves first not what the ACC schools prefer.

I don't think it's the SEC and Big Ten that really will want to expand, it's the other schools on the outside that will spur expansion as well as ESPN and FOX to expand their inventory. I'm not even sure the Big Ten really wanted USC or the SEC really wanted Texas, in both cases the conferences claimed the schools contacted them and it does make sense. Schools like Miami and Florida State have way more to gain contacting the SEC and Big Ten than the other way around.

(11-02-2025 02:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 02:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  There's a reality here that I think a lot of people are ignoring. The conferences are not in a rush to expand like people here seem to think they are. And it's going to be about who moves first not what the ACC schools prefer.

I don't think it's the SEC and Big Ten that really will want to expand, it's the other schools on the outside that will spur expansion as well as ESPN and FOX to expand their inventory. I'm not even sure the Big Ten really wanted USC or the SEC really wanted Texas, in both cases the conferences claimed the schools contacted them and it does make sense. Schools like Miami and Florida State have way more to gain contacting the SEC and Big Ten than the other way around.

There is a great deal of truth in a couple of your assertions. The SEC did not approach Texas. They inquired of us as early as 1987 when the cable subscription pay model was how conference value was ascertained and the SWC only had a two-state footprint, Texas & Arkansas. All of the sudden having 8 Texas schools and one in Arkansas just wasn't going to pay the bills. Conveniently however the Big 8 had the same issue. Their footprint consisted of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas and was smallish in the number of potential viewers. Texas was large in viewers but only one state where 2 schools covered things nicely. The Big 12 was born, but as things switched from the cable subscription model which relied on footprint inclusion as the market, things began to change again with conference networks, T1 and T2 deals on rights, and branding to draw eyeballs started to matter again. Since Texas had the LHN there was no way for the Big 12 to have their own network. Then by the time of streaming branding and the actual number of viewers for a game (now a matter of actual accounting due to smart TVs) changed the model again. During each change the SEC heard from Texas.

When the PAC 12 couldn't land a good contract due to poor viewership the Big Ten heard from them. USC had been shopping the idea of independence for about 2 years when they approached the Big Ten.

And you are correct that schools on the outside are still approaching the Big Ten and SEC. They do want in. And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

North Carolina has twice now approached the SEC the first time in 2011. It seems to me there is mutuality there as there was with UT and the SEC in that both of those schools are major brands in academics and athletics and both have sports business models predicated upon the frequency of local play. The SEC make sense in that regard, especially if UNC brings their chief rival with them. Miami, FSU and Clemson are strong enough brands and Clemson has the largest travel crowd and most consistent home crowd of the 3, but they are in a duplicated small market. The SEC wants a second Florida school for control of that market. Florida has the largest share of its state college sports market, but it is not a majority share. It would be a majority share with Miami, or a super majority share with F.S.U. Two of those sued to be able to move, so that's what I expect they will do.

ESPN's desire to keep them, if they have that desire, could well determine the outcome if ESPN pays what is necessary to make that happen. If the SEC landed Virginia, North Carolina and Duke, I believe they would be quite content with either Florida school.

Now we wait and see what ESPN wants and is willing to pay to retain. And we'll see what the Big Ten might want, and if it is worth it to FOX.