(02-23-2022 07:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  [quote='DawgNBama' pid='18094849' dateline='1645658568']
[quote='bill dazzle' pid='18094243' dateline='1645643393']
I've posted previously — but still feel some on this board don't understand.

The SEC leaders want Vanderbilt in the league, in large part, so that fans of its member schools can travel to Nashville for games (particularly for football contests). I cannot stress that point enough.

If that were the ONLY positive VU brought to the SEC table, ... it alone would be noteworthy.

Bill Dazzle, I am not angry at you, your team, or even Vanderbilt University in general. For crying out loud, one of my favorite doctors graduated from Vanderbilt

And you are probably right on everything, but what makes me more po'd than anything else is that Vandy has to sacrifice winning football teams just so its other sports can compete in the SEC, heavily supported by the B1G and the PAC12: the darn Stanford model.

The Stanford Model is this: the school is not to compete in football. Basketball is ok. The school is to help the conference win academic awards. Every single private school in the P5 with few exceptions is supposed to be just like Stanford.

I hate the Stanford Model with every fiber of my being, much like I personally detest Stanford University in general. There isn't a more arrogant, pompous school in D1 FBS other than Stanford, IMO!!

I don't support the Temple/UALR/UTA model either: if your conference thinks a particular school(s) sucks, throw them out.

I support the Villanova/Georgetown/UConn model: [b] have the ability to be able to put football and basketball & other sports in several conferences if the school wishes to do so. I think even Temple wouldn't mind having baseball and some Olympic sports in the A10. JR somewhat supports this model too, but the B1G and PAC12 fanboys won't have it, because it exposes the mediocrity of their own conferences , IMO.
[/quote]

Wow - I couldn't disagree with you more.

Stanford is what every school should aspire to be: super elite academics, driver of innovation and technology for society AND still competes at a high level in a power sports conference. You obviously haven't even bothered to look at their football records considering that they've made it to three Rose Bowls in the past decade. It's the most difficult school to gain acceptance to in the country (even more so than Harvard and Yale) for good reason. Everyone else is simply jealous.
[/quote]

You single-handedly made my point for me. So every school should be pompous and arrogant, and promoting communism... I'll pass, thank you very much. Am I jealous that I didn't go to Stanford?? Heck no!!! I wouldn't have the son I have and the friends I have now. I refuse to give up either!!!!!!

I used to be somewhat like you Frank, until I was divorced and Covid turned out world upside down. I started learning that being different is good !!!!! If your school wants to be a clone of Stanford, fine by me. Just don't try to change my school that I like as is!!!

As for Stanford having some football success this decade, cool, but what happened when Harbaugh and Willingham left??

I also feel that the B1G is trying to force to be a Stanford clone. What if Northwestern wants to be different from Stanford??

Quote:Guess what? The "mediocre" schools of the Big Ten still manage to make more money than the SEC despite the superior results of the SEC on-the-field. The higher academic standards at the Big Ten schools mean that they send more higher income grads to the largest markets that are the most valuable. Combine that with big-time sports and that's why academics actually *does* have an impact on athletic revenue. The academic and athletic brands are intertwined no matter what the "fanboys" of other conferences want to believe. The prime example is the athletic conference of the Ivy League itself.[\quote]

So, if this is truly the case, then why is there a split on pay for play?? You pretty much state that all the B1G should be about pompous, looking down on the common man/woman type of academics (there is a different academic approach that I prefer, and at least one Ivy League school actually does it that way, believe it or not. This type of teaching takes what the common man/woman knows, and expands upon it, not insulting his/her intelligence, what education is supposed to do, IMO.


[quote]
However, I'm a bit sick of the anti-intellectual strain of complaints about the Big Ten, Pac-12 and (to a lesser extent) ACC focusing on the academic reputations of their respective members and saying *that* is wrong. They can and should be able to whatever the heck they want and, in at least in the case of the Big Ten, they're actually profiting more from football than the "FOOTBAWL IS ALL THAT MATTERS! YEE-HAW!" crowd. If others don't like the Big Ten approach, then that's their prerogative, but don't call it wrong or antiquated when they've been the most successful conference financially (and will likely continue to be so for the foreseeable future when they sign their new TV contract).

It's not about academics. It's about addressing abuses in power!!! Your viewpoint isn't much different than the Biden administration's as well as the current Democratic party's view on politics, IMO. "The common man/woman knows nothing about how to govern himself/herself. Step out of the way and let the "professionals" handle this.". To me, that is a bunch of baloney and a very condescending viewpoint!!

(02-23-2022 07:16 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  [quote='DawgNBama' pid='18090713' dateline='1645501109']
I'm sure UNAfied will have some comments on this, but I will ignore him. Other posters though, please feel free to comment, and I will not ignore you. Anyway...

From the way the AAC expansion actually went down, I have to wonder if E$PN has some future plans in store for the league, not having anything to do with Mountain West teams. I think E$PN plans to move Vandy, Duke, and Wake Forest to the AAC in the future for football only, especially when you consider the "metro" layout of the vast majority of the league, and consider that Vandy (Nashville), Duke (Raleigh-Durham), and Wake Forest (Winston-Salem--Grensboro) are all located in major metro areas, those areas being the ones mentioned in parentheses. This move would allow those institutions to "save" football, while allowing them to concentrate on their specialty sports (basketball and baseball) in their current conferences (SEC & ACC).

Even if the three schools you mentioned had any interest in this proposal, which they absolutely would not, barring a major NCAA regulatory change that no one would support, the SEC and ACC would each have to cease sponsoring FBS football for Vanderbilt, and for Duke and Wake Forest, to continue participating in their current conferences for basketball and baseball while parking their football programs in the AAC as you cannot be a football-only affiliate member of an FBS conference unless your primary conference does not sponsor FBS football. See e.g. Navy and it’s FB-only AAC membership while the rest of its sports are housed in the FCS FB Patriot League; see also Hawai’i and it’s FB-only membership in the MWC while the rest of its programs are in the Big West.

[/quote]



There is a new NCAA constitution convention coming up. I have zero desire to see a repeat of the status quo!!! If the B1G and the PAC 12 likes it, fine!! But other conferences, like the SEC and the G5 conferences are getting fed up with it.

(02-23-2022 09:58 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:09 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I've posted previously — but still feel some on this board don't understand.

The SEC leaders want Vanderbilt in the league, in large part, so that fans of its member schools can travel to Nashville for games (particularly for football contests). I cannot stress that point enough.

If that were the ONLY positive VU brought to the SEC table, ... it alone would be noteworthy.

Indeed, and an often overlooked reason (although there are many others) that Vandy is valuable in and to the SEC. One of the few things the SEC lacks for is large city destinations, Nashville is the biggest and also a great city to visit. Austin, TX will be in this category too once they join, maybe a Dores-Horns rivalry is in the offing!

I could see that Gamenole, but please read the above post. I state as how my proposal could be a reality.

(02-23-2022 08:42 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:38 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I'm sure UNAfied will have some comments on this, but I will ignore him. Other posters though, please feel free to comment, and I will not ignore you. Anyway...

From the way the AAC expansion actually went down, I have to wonder if E$PN has some future plans in store for the league, not having anything to do with Mountain West teams. I think E$PN plans to move Vandy, Duke, and Wake Forest to the AAC in the future for football only, especially when you consider the "metro" layout of the vast majority of the league, and consider that Vandy (Nashville), Duke (Raleigh-Durham), and Wake Forest (Winston-Salem--Grensboro) are all located in major metro areas, those areas being the ones mentioned in parentheses. This move would allow those institutions to "save" football, while allowing them to concentrate on their specialty sports (basketball and baseball) in their current conferences (SEC & ACC).

Did David St or DavidK take over your body because this is on their level dumb. No one is going to just give up their spot in the SEC. I mean you might as well try to send the Georgia Bulldogs to the CFL.

Read the quote below. Then you should be able to understand everything.

(02-23-2022 10:30 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 07:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 06:22 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  [quote='bill dazzle' pid='18094243' dateline='1645643393']
I've posted previously — but still feel some on this board don't understand.

The SEC leaders want Vanderbilt in the league, in large part, so that fans of its member schools can travel to Nashville for games (particularly for football contests). I cannot stress that point enough.

If that were the ONLY positive VU brought to the SEC table, ... it alone would be noteworthy.

Bill Dazzle, I am not angry at you, your team, or even Vanderbilt University in general. For crying out loud, one of my favorite doctors graduated from Vanderbilt

And you are probably right on everything, but what makes me more po'd than anything else is that Vandy has to sacrifice winning football teams just so its other sports can compete in the SEC, heavily supported by the B1G and the PAC12: the darn Stanford model.

The Stanford Model is this: the school is not to compete in football. Basketball is ok. The school is to help the conference win academic awards. Every single private school in the P5 with few exceptions is supposed to be just like Stanford.

I hate the Stanford Model with every fiber of my being, much like I personally detest Stanford University in general. There isn't a more arrogant, pompous school in D1 FBS other than Stanford, IMO!!

I don't support the Temple/UALR/UTA model either: if your conference thinks a particular school(s) sucks, throw them out.

I support the Villanova/Georgetown/UConn model: [b] have the ability to be able to put football and basketball & other sports in several conferences if the school wishes to do so. I think even Temple wouldn't mind having baseball and some Olympic sports in the A10. JR somewhat supports this model too, but the B1G and PAC12 fanboys won't have it, because it exposes the mediocrity of their own conferences , IMO.

Wow - I couldn't disagree with you more.

Stanford is what every school should aspire to be: super elite academics, driver of innovation and technology for society AND still competes at a high level in a power sports conference. You obviously haven't even bothered to look at their football records considering that they've made it to three Rose Bowls in the past decade. It's the most difficult school to gain acceptance to in the country (even more so than Harvard and Yale) for good reason. Everyone else is simply jealous.

You single-handedly made my point for me. So every school should be pompous and arrogant, and promoting communism... I'll pass, thank you very much. Am I jealous that I didn't go to Stanford?? Heck no!!! I wouldn't have the son I have and the friends I have now. I refuse to give up either!!!!!!

I used to be somewhat like you Frank, until I was divorced and Covid turned out world upside down. I started learning that being different is good !!!!! If your school wants to be a clone of Stanford, fine by me. Just don't try to change my school that I like as is!!!

As for Stanford having some football success this decade, cool, but what happened when Harbaugh and Willingham left??

I also feel that the B1G is trying to force to be a Stanford clone. What if Northwestern wants to be different from Stanford??

Quote:Guess what? The "mediocre" schools of the Big Ten still manage to make more money than the SEC despite the superior results of the SEC on-the-field. The higher academic standards at the Big Ten schools mean that they send more higher income grads to the largest markets that are the most valuable. Combine that with big-time sports and that's why academics actually *does* have an impact on athletic revenue. The academic and athletic brands are intertwined no matter what the "fanboys" of other conferences want to believe. The prime example is the athletic conference of the Ivy League itself.[\quote]

So, if this is truly the case, then why is there a split on pay for play?? You pretty much state that all the B1G should be about pompous, looking down on the common man/woman type of academics (there is a different academic approach that I prefer, and at least one Ivy League school actually does it that way, believe it or not. This type of teaching takes what the common man/woman knows, and expands upon it, not insulting his/her intelligence, what education is supposed to do, IMO.

Quote:However, I'm a bit sick of the anti-intellectual strain of complaints about the Big Ten, Pac-12 and (to a lesser extent) ACC focusing on the academic reputations of their respective members and saying *that* is wrong. They can and should be able to whatever the heck they want and, in at least in the case of the Big Ten, they're actually profiting more from football than the "FOOTBAWL IS ALL THAT MATTERS! YEE-HAW!" crowd. If others don't like the Big Ten approach, then that's their prerogative, but don't call it wrong or antiquated when they've been the most successful conference financially (and will likely continue to be so for the foreseeable future when they sign their new TV contract).

It's not about academics. It's about addressing abuses in power!!! Your viewpoint isn't much different than the Biden administration's as well as the current Democratic party's view on politics, IMO. "The common man/woman knows nothing about how to govern himself/herself. Step out of the way and let the "professionals" handle this.". To me, that is a bunch of baloney and a very condescending viewpoint!!

(02-23-2022 07:16 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:38 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I'm sure UNAfied will have some comments on this, but I will ignore him. Other posters though, please feel free to comment, and I will not ignore you. Anyway...

From the way the AAC expansion actually went down, I have to wonder if E$PN has some future plans in store for the league, not having anything to do with Mountain West teams. I think E$PN plans to move Vandy, Duke, and Wake Forest to the AAC in the future for football only, especially when you consider the "metro" layout of the vast majority of the league, and consider that Vandy (Nashville), Duke (Raleigh-Durham), and Wake Forest (Winston-Salem--Grensboro) are all located in major metro areas, those areas being the ones mentioned in parentheses. This move would allow those institutions to "save" football, while allowing them to concentrate on their specialty sports (basketball and baseball) in their current conferences (SEC & ACC).

Even if the three schools you mentioned had any interest in this proposal, which they absolutely would not, barring a major NCAA regulatory change that no one would support, the SEC and ACC would each have to cease sponsoring FBS football for Vanderbilt, and for Duke and Wake Forest, to continue participating in their current conferences for basketball and baseball while parking their football programs in the AAC as you cannot be a football-only affiliate member of an FBS conference unless your primary conference does not sponsor FBS football. See e.g. Navy and it’s FB-only AAC membership while the rest of its sports are housed in the FCS FB Patriot League; see also Hawai’i and it’s FB-only membership in the MWC while the rest of its programs are in the Big West.

There is a new NCAA constitution convention coming up. I have zero desire to see a repeat of the status quo!!! If the B1G and the PAC 12 likes it, fine!! But other conferences, like the SEC and the G5 conferences are getting fed up with it.

(02-23-2022 07:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 06:22 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:09 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I've posted previously — but still feel some on this board don't understand.

The SEC leaders want Vanderbilt in the league, in large part, so that fans of its member schools can travel to Nashville for games (particularly for football contests). I cannot stress that point enough.

If that were the ONLY positive VU brought to the SEC table, ... it alone would be noteworthy.

Bill Dazzle, I am not angry at you, your team, or even Vanderbilt University in general. For crying out loud, one of my favorite doctors graduated from Vanderbilt

And you are probably right on everything, but what makes me more po'd than anything else is that Vandy has to sacrifice winning football teams just so its other sports can compete in the SEC, heavily supported by the B1G and the PAC12: the darn Stanford model.

The Stanford Model is this: the school is not to compete in football. Basketball is ok. The school is to help the conference win academic awards. Every single private school in the P5 with few exceptions is supposed to be just like Stanford.

I hate the Stanford Model with every fiber of my being, much like I personally detest Stanford University in general. There isn't a more arrogant, pompous school in D1 FBS other than Stanford, IMO!!

I don't support the Temple/UALR/UTA model either: if your conference thinks a particular school(s) sucks, throw them out.

I support the Villanova/Georgetown/UConn model: [b] have the ability to be able to put football and basketball & other sports in several conferences if the school wishes to do so. I think even Temple wouldn't mind having baseball and some Olympic sports in the A10. JR somewhat supports this model too, but the B1G and PAC12 fanboys won't have it, because it exposes the mediocrity of their own conferences , IMO.

Wow - I couldn't disagree with you more.

Stanford is what every school should aspire to be: super elite academics, driver of innovation and technology for society AND still competes at a high level in a power sports conference. You obviously haven't even bothered to look at their football records considering that they've made it to three Rose Bowls in the past decade. It's the most difficult school to gain acceptance to in the country (even more so than Harvard and Yale) for good reason. Everyone else is simply jealous.

Guess what? The "mediocre" schools of the Big Ten still manage to make more money than the SEC despite the superior results of the SEC on-the-field. The higher academic standards at the Big Ten schools mean that they send more higher income grads to the largest markets that are the most valuable. Combine that with big-time sports and that's why academics actually *does* have an impact on athletic revenue. The academic and athletic brands are intertwined no matter what the "fanboys" of other conferences want to believe. The prime example is the athletic conference of the Ivy League itself.

Don't get me wrong - I don't have any issue whatsoever on the SEC approach to conference realignment. I also don't have any issue whatsoever with athletic conferences making as much as revenue as possible. Finally, I don't have any issue whatsoever with athletes making as much compensation as possible. There is nothing wrong with the SEC approach (and it's frankly not much different than the Big Ten approach when it comes to the actual deployment of athletic resources).

However, I'm a bit sick of the anti-intellectual strain of complaints about the Big Ten, Pac-12 and (to a lesser extent) ACC focusing on the academic reputations of their respective members and saying *that* is wrong. They can and should be able to whatever the heck they want and, in at least in the case of the Big Ten, they're actually profiting more from football than the "FOOTBAWL IS ALL THAT MATTERS! YEE-HAW!" crowd. If others don't like the Big Ten approach, then that's their prerogative, but don't call it wrong or antiquated when they've been the most successful conference financially (and will likely continue to be so for the foreseeable future when they sign their new TV contract).

100% agree Frank

DawgNBama, you are out to lunch. Stanford is the gold standard for what every university in the country should aspire to. Not only are they a top 5 academically, they compete at the top level of college sports in the D1 and FBS.

Yes their last 3 seasons have been pretty disappointing but in a 10 year period, from 2009-2018, the Cardinal had two 8 win seasons, two 9 win seasons, and six 10+ win seasons. During that span they went 6-4 in bowl games and won two Rose bowls, oh and they finished in the top 10 at the end of the season 4 times. They did all this despite being one of the most exclusive universities academically in the country and fielding more sports teams than any school in the cash heavy SEC.

Also if you know anything about the PAC, they haven't prioritized football above all else like the SEC.... ever.... LOL.

You don't have to like Stanford but they've been pretty amazing for how elite the school is.

(02-23-2022 10:30 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 07:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 06:22 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  [quote='bill dazzle' pid='18094243' dateline='1645643393']
I've posted previously — but still feel some on this board don't understand.

The SEC leaders want Vanderbilt in the league, in large part, so that fans of its member schools can travel to Nashville for games (particularly for football contests). I cannot stress that point enough.

If that were the ONLY positive VU brought to the SEC table, ... it alone would be noteworthy.

Bill Dazzle, I am not angry at you, your team, or even Vanderbilt University in general. For crying out loud, one of my favorite doctors graduated from Vanderbilt

And you are probably right on everything, but what makes me more po'd than anything else is that Vandy has to sacrifice winning football teams just so its other sports can compete in the SEC, heavily supported by the B1G and the PAC12: the darn Stanford model.

The Stanford Model is this: the school is not to compete in football. Basketball is ok. The school is to help the conference win academic awards. Every single private school in the P5 with few exceptions is supposed to be just like Stanford.

I hate the Stanford Model with every fiber of my being, much like I personally detest Stanford University in general. There isn't a more arrogant, pompous school in D1 FBS other than Stanford, IMO!!

I don't support the Temple/UALR/UTA model either: if your conference thinks a particular school(s) sucks, throw them out.

I support the Villanova/Georgetown/UConn model: [b] have the ability to be able to put football and basketball & other sports in several conferences if the school wishes to do so. I think even Temple wouldn't mind having baseball and some Olympic sports in the A10. JR somewhat supports this model too, but the B1G and PAC12 fanboys won't have it, because it exposes the mediocrity of their own conferences , IMO.

Wow - I couldn't disagree with you more.

Stanford is what every school should aspire to be: super elite academics, driver of innovation and technology for society AND still competes at a high level in a power sports conference. You obviously haven't even bothered to look at their football records considering that they've made it to three Rose Bowls in the past decade. It's the most difficult school to gain acceptance to in the country (even more so than Harvard and Yale) for good reason. Everyone else is simply jealous.

You single-handedly made my point for me. So every school should be pompous and arrogant, and promoting communism... I'll pass, thank you very much. Am I jealous that I didn't go to Stanford?? Heck no!!! I wouldn't have the son I have and the friends I have now. I refuse to give up either!!!!!!

I used to be somewhat like you Frank, until I was divorced and Covid turned out world upside down. I started learning that being different is good !!!!! If your school wants to be a clone of Stanford, fine by me. Just don't try to change my school that I like as is!!!

As for Stanford having some football success this decade, cool, but what happened when Harbaugh and Willingham left??

I also feel that the B1G is trying to force to be a Stanford clone. What if Northwestern wants to be different from Stanford??

Quote:Guess what? The "mediocre" schools of the Big Ten still manage to make more money than the SEC despite the superior results of the SEC on-the-field. The higher academic standards at the Big Ten schools mean that they send more higher income grads to the largest markets that are the most valuable. Combine that with big-time sports and that's why academics actually *does* have an impact on athletic revenue. The academic and athletic brands are intertwined no matter what the "fanboys" of other conferences want to believe. The prime example is the athletic conference of the Ivy League itself.[\quote]

So, if this is truly the case, then why is there a split on pay for play?? You pretty much state that all the B1G should be about pompous, looking down on the common man/woman type of academics (there is a different academic approach that I prefer, and at least one Ivy League school actually does it that way, believe it or not. This type of teaching takes what the common man/woman knows, and expands upon it, not insulting his/her intelligence, what education is supposed to do, IMO.

Quote:However, I'm a bit sick of the anti-intellectual strain of complaints about the Big Ten, Pac-12 and (to a lesser extent) ACC focusing on the academic reputations of their respective members and saying *that* is wrong. They can and should be able to whatever the heck they want and, in at least in the case of the Big Ten, they're actually profiting more from football than the "FOOTBAWL IS ALL THAT MATTERS! YEE-HAW!" crowd. If others don't like the Big Ten approach, then that's their prerogative, but don't call it wrong or antiquated when they've been the most successful conference financially (and will likely continue to be so for the foreseeable future when they sign their new TV contract).

It's not about academics. It's about addressing abuses in power!!! Your viewpoint isn't much different than the Biden administration's as well as the current Democratic party's view on politics, IMO. "The common man/woman knows nothing about how to govern himself/herself. Step out of the way and let the "professionals" handle this.". To me, that is a bunch of baloney and a very condescending viewpoint!!

(02-23-2022 07:16 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(02-21-2022 10:38 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I'm sure UNAfied will have some comments on this, but I will ignore him. Other posters though, please feel free to comment, and I will not ignore you. Anyway...

From the way the AAC expansion actually went down, I have to wonder if E$PN has some future plans in store for the league, not having anything to do with Mountain West teams. I think E$PN plans to move Vandy, Duke, and Wake Forest to the AAC in the future for football only, especially when you consider the "metro" layout of the vast majority of the league, and consider that Vandy (Nashville), Duke (Raleigh-Durham), and Wake Forest (Winston-Salem--Grensboro) are all located in major metro areas, those areas being the ones mentioned in parentheses. This move would allow those institutions to "save" football, while allowing them to concentrate on their specialty sports (basketball and baseball) in their current conferences (SEC & ACC).

Even if the three schools you mentioned had any interest in this proposal, which they absolutely would not, barring a major NCAA regulatory change that no one would support, the SEC and ACC would each have to cease sponsoring FBS football for Vanderbilt, and for Duke and Wake Forest, to continue participating in their current conferences for basketball and baseball while parking their football programs in the AAC as you cannot be a football-only affiliate member of an FBS conference unless your primary conference does not sponsor FBS football. See e.g. Navy and it’s FB-only AAC membership while the rest of its sports are housed in the FCS FB Patriot League; see also Hawai’i and it’s FB-only membership in the MWC while the rest of its programs are in the Big West.

There is a new NCAA constitution convention coming up. I have zero desire to see a repeat of the status quo!!! If the B1G and the PAC 12 likes it, fine!! But other conferences, like the SEC and the G5 conferences are getting fed up with it.

Without getting mucked up in the seemingly out-of-left-field and incoherent political commentary here, it seems like the vision of conference affiliations and college sports more broadly you're wanting to see is one where sports are far more detached from the universities that sponsor them. To me, it makes perfect sense that a conference is a group of likeminded universities who also play sports together. In that way, conferences aren't just about things on the field but also things off the field, like academics, playing in front of alumni, recruiting students, and having shared institutional values/alignment. That's how things have worked for a long time, and how they probably should work as long as these remain *college* sports, Otherwise, why can't they just be minor league sports? That would be a loss, imo, since being part of a larger university and college experience is what makes it special.

As other posters have noted, that is precisely why there is so much cohesion in the B1G and Pac 12 (and the ACC to an extent): these schools want to be associated with each other both institutionally and athletically. That in and of itself enhances the value of the collective. I discussed this at length with Texas fans after the SEC move, who couldn't fathom why Ohio State isn't busting down the doors to join now that the SEC is becoming the only conference that matters (lol). And none of this even touches on how much more valuable the academic and institutional collaborations, often between conference mates, are than athletic revenue to the university as a whole.

And as a Northwestern grad, I can promise you that Stanford is the model here. Nobody is "forcing" us to do anything. We want to win games and graduate athletes. Will we win the CFP? Nope. We've been playing alright on the gridiron recently ('19/'21 notwithstanding) and win plenty in a lot of other sports (lax, field hockey, softball, women's hoops). So we'll leave the football nattys to Ohio State/Clemson/Alabama, no issue.

I agree, this was certainly a weird thought.