(02-07-2023 08:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The B1G whiffed on OUT ...

In order for the Big Ten to whiff on "OUT", wouldn't they have had to try a shot? It seems like they declined to take aim at all.

It's reasonable to suppose that the SEC had the inside track all along, but what seems suspiciously like a Big Ten view that Oklahoma was "not good enough" academically to invite into the Big Ten is evidence of their ongoing irrationality.

The "official" story if I remember correctly is that Oklahoma and Texas went to the SEC. I seem to recall a long time ago about discussions between the Big Ten and Texas and Gordon Gee referring to a "Tech problem", hinting that the Big Ten would not be willing to accept Texas Tech along with Texas. I don't recall any formal discussions between Oklahoma and the Big Ten. Maybe there was a formal or informal rejection of Oklahoma and Texas preferred the SEC as a result. Maybe Texas preferred the SEC all along and it wouldn't have mattered whether the Big Ten rejected Oklahoma or not. Geographically it makes a lot more sense.

(02-07-2023 03:20 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  This begs the big question as to why the B1G doesn't want to plant a flag (or two) in the State of FL. If it's important to the SEC to add another, it should be even more important to the B1G. Clearly they're not afraid to go national. And clearly they're way behind the mighty SEC in terms of fertile recruiting grounds. And obviously there are plenty of B1G fans who now call the Sunshine State home. If FSU or Miami are well on their way (I believe they both will be, for various reasons) to AAU admission by 2030...it should be a no-brainer to add one or both along with other top ACC schools. Slow play it until the time is right ('36?) and haul in some combination of FSU/UNC/Duke/UVA/GT/Miami.

It all comes down to if the SEC takes action, or sits on their hands til the 2030s.

And those 6 are not a bad combination : )

(02-07-2023 08:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The B1G whiffed on OUT ...

In order for the Big Ten to whiff on "OUT", wouldn't they have had to try a shot? It seems like they declined to take aim at all.

It's reasonable to suppose that the SEC had the inside track all along, but what seems suspiciously like a Big Ten view that Oklahoma was "not good enough" academically to invite into the Big Ten is evidence of their ongoing irrationality.

And not good enough for the ACC either when Oklahoma was substituted for Texas A&M in a deal that included Texas, Kansas and Notre Dame.
Evidently the PAC was willing to take Oklahoma, but only if Texas was part of the deal.

(02-07-2023 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 12:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  Utah's two straight Pac titles don't make them the Pac football brand. This past year was the first time since they joined the Pac they have finished in the top 10. They've only done it 4 times in history. Oregon has done it 5 times just since Utah joined including 4 top 5s. Washington has done it twice since they joined and 9 times since 1968, including 5 top 5s.

Their mediocre TV ratings demonstrate that. In the Sic'em analysis, they are 44th, right between Texas Tech and Pitt. In Miller's analysis (which I'm not enthused about) they do have a similar standing, #41, with Texas Tech, Washington St. and Northwestern right in front of them and Army, Minnesota and Pitt right behind them. Bob Thompson's (ex-Fox exec who has been quoted a lot, especially by Wilzano) recent analysis shows about the same thing.

I agree about Utah.

IMO, USC is far and away the top PAC football brand, [b]or was[/b]. They are a true blue-blood.

Herein resides the issue:
Last Championship 2003-4: vacated. Had a 2-3 year run. Blue Bloods Quo, keep winning. USC is without a doubt a historical program of significance. If the Big 10 acquires Notre Dame they will have 3 truly great historical programs, Notre Dame, USC, and Nebraska. All with history, and not much upside in the future. They will still have two true bluebloods, Michigan and Ohio State with emphasis on the latter.

Most of this is because of the same reason the SEC has been so successful. We have the recruits in the SE and SW and those are the two best and sustainable sources of talent because High School football is still a community priority.

No doubt there are athletes in Southern California, parts of Ohio and parts of Pennsylvania, but not enough of them to support the Big 10 collective which all try to recruit those areas, and certainly not enough in Southern California to support the PAC and MWC. The transfer portal will help with this. NIL may be a wash among the big-name programs so no edge for the bluebloods when competing against each other for top recruits.

The fact that so many schools out west try to draw from Southern California for talent weakens all of the brands. The Big 10 all trying to recruit Ohio & Pennsylvania spreads talent too thinly. The SEC has simply been able to supply its top 8 schools enough talent to make any of them competitive on any given year, and that will continue.

Check out USC's valuation from the WSJ and those numbers I listed in this thread were for all sports, not just football. They are upper third ACC numbers, and below the Big 10 MEAN. UCLA has a better valuation due to hoops. Ohio State is the only program in the nation aside from Clemson and FSU (when up) that could compete weekly in the SEC with hope of success. PAC schools simply haven't been competitive. The SEC just acquired the only two in the Big 12 which can compete with hope of success weekly in the SEC.

And let me make this clear, the SEC did nothing to earn this blessing. It is simply the culture of the region which makes it possible. From Texas up to Oklahoma, through Arkansas and across the Deep South it is still as Pepper Rogers once called it, the second religion. Pepper said the state of Alabama was divided into two holy sites where orthodox pilgrims traveled weekly in the Fall to worship on Saturday at the West Alabama Temple and the East Alabama Temple and he called UofA the University of West Alabama and he called AU the University of East Alabama. The directional nature I'm sure intended as a slight. He said the whole thing had such zeal that the only thing which wasn't Kosher is that each worshiped a pigskin.

Now, add in the industrialization of the South, jobs, a rising income level, and growth and the pattern becomes set in place for much longer than elsewhere. Toss in what is still a relatively low NFL impact and as Bear used to say to Charlie, "Bingo, that's a goodie!" I'd toss in a Shug quote, but he didn't have that many. But at one Burn the Bulldog pep rally he did read from the 23rd Psalm, "Yeah though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death (a real place in the mountains outside of Jerusalem by the way), I will fear no evil. For tomorrow I shall be the meanest SOB in the whole damned valley!" And Auburn was the next day in Athens and beat a much better Vince Dooley team.

FWIW, I am not a fan of the WSJ valuations.

IIRC, in their 2019 list, they had USC ranked behind schools like Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan State, Ole Miss, and Washington. That IMO just beggars belief. To me, USC is a far bigger brand name and would, for any given ranking level, draw more media and fan interest than any of those schools. Just my opinion.

On the field, USC isn't what they were under Pete Carroll, but in the last seven years they played in three NY6 bowl games. They are to me still a high-performing program. They've won national titles far more recently than has Notre Dame, a fellow blue-blood that IMO is of extremely high value.

IMO, the reason the B1G invited USC and UCLA was not because of the LA market, though of course that was nice, it was because of USC. UCLA was a tagalong. It was the presence of USC that made this move a quasi-credible response in the CFB community to the SEC getting TX and OU. Not equivalent because UCLA is not a blue-blood like the other three, but it was as close as they could come, IMO.

Had they invited say UCLA and Stanford, which would have allowed them to tap into an even larger market profile, southern and northern California, the move would IMO have been perceived as a dud response, because those schools do not match up with TX and OU in terms of football and overall athletic value at all. It was largely about USC, IMO.

If I recall correctly, the reporting said that USC wanted out and reached out. UCLA was along for the ride.

(02-07-2023 05:22 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  I don't see any chance that UNC would join the B1G with just UVA. They'd be a true outpost in every way. At a minimum, they'll need another school from NC. Heck, I think they'll even demand that in going to the SEC. FSU/Miami/UW/UO even less likely (you were right...."weird"). If FSU or Miami have a SEC invite...they'd take that first, even for a little less $. They'd be far out outposts.

I sincerely think that wherever NC goes, they will want at least 1 in-state partner, and a Virginia school.

If to the SEC - NC and NC state, with VT.

If to the B10 - NC and Duke, with VA.

It's not only about what NC wants, but what the conferences (and associated entities) want.

And 3 schools create a better synergy for this.

(02-07-2023 08:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The B1G whiffed on OUT ...

In order for the Big Ten to whiff on "OUT", wouldn't they have had to try a shot? It seems like they declined to take aim at all.

It's reasonable to suppose that the SEC had the inside track all along, but what seems suspiciously like a Big Ten view that Oklahoma was "not good enough" academically to invite into the Big Ten is evidence of their ongoing irrationality.

I've heard that OU was not academically acceptable to the B1G, and I've heard that OUT just looked at both Conferences and decided that the SEC was better. I'm not sure which situation makes the B1G look worse: getting snubbed by OUT, or deciding they're too good for OUT. The Pac thought they were too good for OUT and that worked out great for them.

FWIW, I have strong reason to believe that OUT simply had a change of heart after seeing the incredible success A&M has had since joining the SEC, and after they both changed Administrations. It's not just decent performance on the field (as opposed to 5 wins a year every year instead of just last year), but it's the leap from barely top 20 to top 5 in revenues. It's the huge stadium improvements. It's the significantly greater competitiveness across many facets of our Athletics department. And, by following Big Brother, OUT get to have safety in numbers with strong regional rivals in A&M, LSU, Missouri and Arkansas, instead of 800 miles to the nearest Conference school.

(02-07-2023 08:31 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 07:11 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 06:47 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don’t see how both FSU and Miami get an SEC invite, that seems a little overkill in Florida. However, if leaving UM means canceling the series, then that makes a tough decision that much harder.

The ACC can really help themselves and possibly not lose anybody at all. Perhaps the best thing to come from realignment is pressure from the ACC to do something. They did, they went divisionless. This might not seem like a big whoop, but most of the Coastal division was pretty ok with with their set up, particularly UNC, UVA and Duke. Notice that change happened in the midst of USCLA and OUT. This divisionless change was more about pacifying the football first schools, but the cover story is about cycling through the rest of the conference quicker (2/4 years instead of 2/12 years). Everyone is locked into the ACC until around 2036, but I think another big change will happen in the ACC around 2030. My prediction is that WVU will be extended an invite which again will pacify the football schools if they accept.

The rest of the ACC hopes that’s enough to squash FSU/Clemson to the SEC rumors, but I feel like the ACC needs to do more to get FSU and Clemson closer to SEC money. By 2036 the ACC goes through a major financial restructuring with a system of unequal revenue sharing that convinces the schools with clout to stay.

Yep, we in the ACC for the long haul.

I would agree that Miami is probably an outsider for a SEC invite, except as a defensive move. It's pretty well established that - barring a major change of events - the ACC is going to lose some valuable brands over the course of the next decade or so. The money gap between the B1G/SEC and the ACC is very very unlikely to be resolved. And it's deva$tating.

WVU will not be getting an invite to the ACC except as a backfill down the road. I'm not sure you understand what stands in the way of that school getting 75%+ of the current membership vote...and if they somehow did...how it might impact the GoR. Same with the ACC-PAC concepts. I've been pretty exhausted for the past decade hearing about whom the ACC should/will add. It won't happen until there are spots to backfill or there's some kind of massive, almost incomprehensible restructuring deal. WVU would love the invite of course...and they will have to keep waiting.

I’ll disagree. The closer we get to the GoR expiration, the more the decision making will line up with the schools that have a P2 life jacket. You may recall that when UMd left, the first choice was UConn, but FSU and Clemson strongly recommended UL or else...and the ACC got UL. Also keep in mind that that nearly half of the ACC shared the conference with WVU. By 2030, whatever gripe their former conference mates had will be water under the bridge for the sake of survival. Pitt may have had the biggest gripe because their game with them got very toxic, but apparently the wound has healed with the series renewed for 2 games. I think the only voting block that could still be in the way of WVU would be UNC, Duke, UVA (ND get a vote?).But an extension of the GoR (probably necessary for WVU to come aboard) and a decent bump in $ will probably ensure it gets done.

I hope FSU can leverage the situation a little bit more, perhaps getting GT as an annual game as well as Clemson and UM. I think just enough concessions will be made to keep the ACC from losing any more members.

I'm not sure that the ACC can offer enough to FSU and the others to change their minds. Running at a $25m+ deficit to the P2, which is likely to get much worse by 2036, they'd have to slash the payouts for the bottom 11 to fund the top 3. To get $75m from 11 schools would be about $7m each, so something like $43m for the bottom 11 and $75m for the Big 3. And that's just to get on par with the 2030/2034 P2 contracts, they'll both have new contracts sewn up before the ACC even goes to market for 2036.

If I'm Miami and my choice is $43m in the ACC with a $32m shortfall against the top 3 in my conference, or an equal payout with big 12 schools and a bit more than $43m, I don't think twice about that. Or VT. Or Louisville. The ACC is going to get squeezed from both directions, their only way out is a deal that's very close to the 2036 P2 contracts. And based upon what we've seen when they don't have a top 4 Clemson, the new ACC contract even with their entire current roster intact will look a whole lot more like the big 12's than the P2's.

WV will be in a conference containing ACC schools soon enough, but not the one that many here seem to think.

(02-07-2023 09:09 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 08:31 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 07:11 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 06:47 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don’t see how both FSU and Miami get an SEC invite, that seems a little overkill in Florida. However, if leaving UM means canceling the series, then that makes a tough decision that much harder.

The ACC can really help themselves and possibly not lose anybody at all. Perhaps the best thing to come from realignment is pressure from the ACC to do something. They did, they went divisionless. This might not seem like a big whoop, but most of the Coastal division was pretty ok with with their set up, particularly UNC, UVA and Duke. Notice that change happened in the midst of USCLA and OUT. This divisionless change was more about pacifying the football first schools, but the cover story is about cycling through the rest of the conference quicker (2/4 years instead of 2/12 years). Everyone is locked into the ACC until around 2036, but I think another big change will happen in the ACC around 2030. My prediction is that WVU will be extended an invite which again will pacify the football schools if they accept.

The rest of the ACC hopes that’s enough to squash FSU/Clemson to the SEC rumors, but I feel like the ACC needs to do more to get FSU and Clemson closer to SEC money. By 2036 the ACC goes through a major financial restructuring with a system of unequal revenue sharing that convinces the schools with clout to stay.

Yep, we in the ACC for the long haul.

I would agree that Miami is probably an outsider for a SEC invite, except as a defensive move. It's pretty well established that - barring a major change of events - the ACC is going to lose some valuable brands over the course of the next decade or so. The money gap between the B1G/SEC and the ACC is very very unlikely to be resolved. And it's deva$tating.

WVU will not be getting an invite to the ACC except as a backfill down the road. I'm not sure you understand what stands in the way of that school getting 75%+ of the current membership vote...and if they somehow did...how it might impact the GoR. Same with the ACC-PAC concepts. I've been pretty exhausted for the past decade hearing about whom the ACC should/will add. It won't happen until there are spots to backfill or there's some kind of massive, almost incomprehensible restructuring deal. WVU would love the invite of course...and they will have to keep waiting.

I’ll disagree. The closer we get to the GoR expiration, the more the decision making will line up with the schools that have a P2 life jacket. You may recall that when UMd left, the first choice was UConn, but FSU and Clemson strongly recommended UL or else...and the ACC got UL. Also keep in mind that that nearly half of the ACC shared the conference with WVU. By 2030, whatever gripe their former conference mates had will be water under the bridge for the sake of survival. Pitt may have had the biggest gripe because their game with them got very toxic, but apparently the wound has healed with the series renewed for 2 games. I think the only voting block that could still be in the way of WVU would be UNC, Duke, UVA (ND get a vote?).But an extension of the GoR (probably necessary for WVU to come aboard) and a decent bump in $ will probably ensure it gets done.

I hope FSU can leverage the situation a little bit more, perhaps getting GT as an annual game as well as Clemson and UM. I think just enough concessions will be made to keep the ACC from losing any more members.

I'm not sure that the ACC can offer enough to FSU and the others to change their minds. Running at a $25m+ deficit to the P2, which is likely to get much worse by 2036, they'd have to slash the payouts for the bottom 11 to fund the top 3. To get $75m from 11 schools would be about $7m each, so something like $43m for the bottom 11 and $75m for the Big 3. And that's just to get on par with the 2030/2034 P2 contracts, they'll both have new contracts sewn up before the ACC even goes to market for 2036.

If I'm Miami and my choice is $43m in the ACC with a $32m shortfall against the top 3 in my conference, or an equal payout with big 12 schools and a bit more than $43m, I don't think twice about that. Or VT. Or Louisville. The ACC is going to get squeezed from both directions, their only way out is a deal that's very close to the 2036 P2 contracts. And based upon what we've seen when they don't have a top 4 Clemson, the new ACC contract even with their entire current roster intact will look a whole lot more like the big 12's than the P2's.

WV will be in a conference containing ACC schools soon enough, but not the one that many here seem to think.

This whole line of argumentation is just nonsense. ESPN will keep its property because this is essentially their only business. They may run the ACC deeper into the contract than the ACC would like but before things get heated up again around 2030 ESPN will approve some additions, renegotiate, sign a new GOR and move on. If trouble comes sooner a merger is quite possible since both the SEC and ACC have the same terms just at different rates. Then the unit signs a new GOR.

And there are another few angles which can be worked.

The Big 10 only makes up ground out West and the PAC schools fit them a lot better than the ACC AAU schools do.

It will be quite interesting though to see it all play out. ESPN and FOX are set up to each have 1 of the Super 2 and to share rights to the third. Hello? Think about that. Conferences these days = Proxies.

UNC and other ACC schools would cut ties with Duke for better money in the Big 10 and SEC. Duke is like California and Stanford. No viewers nor they add value for football product.

(02-07-2023 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 09:09 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 08:31 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 07:11 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 06:47 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I don’t see how both FSU and Miami get an SEC invite, that seems a little overkill in Florida. However, if leaving UM means canceling the series, then that makes a tough decision that much harder.

The ACC can really help themselves and possibly not lose anybody at all. Perhaps the best thing to come from realignment is pressure from the ACC to do something. They did, they went divisionless. This might not seem like a big whoop, but most of the Coastal division was pretty ok with with their set up, particularly UNC, UVA and Duke. Notice that change happened in the midst of USCLA and OUT. This divisionless change was more about pacifying the football first schools, but the cover story is about cycling through the rest of the conference quicker (2/4 years instead of 2/12 years). Everyone is locked into the ACC until around 2036, but I think another big change will happen in the ACC around 2030. My prediction is that WVU will be extended an invite which again will pacify the football schools if they accept.

The rest of the ACC hopes that’s enough to squash FSU/Clemson to the SEC rumors, but I feel like the ACC needs to do more to get FSU and Clemson closer to SEC money. By 2036 the ACC goes through a major financial restructuring with a system of unequal revenue sharing that convinces the schools with clout to stay.

Yep, we in the ACC for the long haul.

I would agree that Miami is probably an outsider for a SEC invite, except as a defensive move. It's pretty well established that - barring a major change of events - the ACC is going to lose some valuable brands over the course of the next decade or so. The money gap between the B1G/SEC and the ACC is very very unlikely to be resolved. And it's deva$tating.

WVU will not be getting an invite to the ACC except as a backfill down the road. I'm not sure you understand what stands in the way of that school getting 75%+ of the current membership vote...and if they somehow did...how it might impact the GoR. Same with the ACC-PAC concepts. I've been pretty exhausted for the past decade hearing about whom the ACC should/will add. It won't happen until there are spots to backfill or there's some kind of massive, almost incomprehensible restructuring deal. WVU would love the invite of course...and they will have to keep waiting.

I’ll disagree. The closer we get to the GoR expiration, the more the decision making will line up with the schools that have a P2 life jacket. You may recall that when UMd left, the first choice was UConn, but FSU and Clemson strongly recommended UL or else...and the ACC got UL. Also keep in mind that that nearly half of the ACC shared the conference with WVU. By 2030, whatever gripe their former conference mates had will be water under the bridge for the sake of survival. Pitt may have had the biggest gripe because their game with them got very toxic, but apparently the wound has healed with the series renewed for 2 games. I think the only voting block that could still be in the way of WVU would be UNC, Duke, UVA (ND get a vote?).But an extension of the GoR (probably necessary for WVU to come aboard) and a decent bump in $ will probably ensure it gets done.

I hope FSU can leverage the situation a little bit more, perhaps getting GT as an annual game as well as Clemson and UM. I think just enough concessions will be made to keep the ACC from losing any more members.

I'm not sure that the ACC can offer enough to FSU and the others to change their minds. Running at a $25m+ deficit to the P2, which is likely to get much worse by 2036, they'd have to slash the payouts for the bottom 11 to fund the top 3. To get $75m from 11 schools would be about $7m each, so something like $43m for the bottom 11 and $75m for the Big 3. And that's just to get on par with the 2030/2034 P2 contracts, they'll both have new contracts sewn up before the ACC even goes to market for 2036.

If I'm Miami and my choice is $43m in the ACC with a $32m shortfall against the top 3 in my conference, or an equal payout with big 12 schools and a bit more than $43m, I don't think twice about that. Or VT. Or Louisville. The ACC is going to get squeezed from both directions, their only way out is a deal that's very close to the 2036 P2 contracts. And based upon what we've seen when they don't have a top 4 Clemson, the new ACC contract even with their entire current roster intact will look a whole lot more like the big 12's than the P2's.

WV will be in a conference containing ACC schools soon enough, but not the one that many here seem to think.

This whole line of argumentation is just nonsense. ESPN will keep its property because this is essentially their only business. They may run the ACC deeper into the contract than the ACC would like but before things get heated up again around 2030 ESPN will approve some additions, renegotiate, sign a new GOR and move on. If trouble comes sooner a merger is quite possible since both the SEC and ACC have the same terms just at different rates. Then the unit signs a new GOR.

And there are another few angles which can be worked.

The Big 10 only makes up ground out West and the PAC schools fit them a lot better than the ACC AAU schools do.

It will be quite interesting though to see it all play out. ESPN and FOX are set up to each have 1 of the Super 2 and to share rights to the third. Hello? Think about that. Conferences these days = Proxies.

ESPN and FOX already have exactly what you wrote JR.
ESPN has the SEC and FOX has the B1G and both share the Big 12.
At the end of the day, the ACC will still be there, because ESPN will need content and the ACC has a contract. The PAC will still be there because there is enough value for a conference but too many schools to be absorbed into a Super league.

(02-07-2023 09:35 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  UNC and other ACC schools would cut ties with Duke for better money in the Big 10 and SEC. Duke is like California and Stanford. No viewers nor they add value for football product.

And yet, if the option was on the table, Duke easily gets a B10 invite.

Difference between Duke and either California or Stanford is...

1) Duke is a lot closer to Maryland, Penn State, and Rutgers than Cal/Stanford is to Nebraska and Iowa. In fact, Berkeley to UCLA isn't exactly that close either.

UCLA to Berkeley: 368 miles
North Carolina to Maryland: 283 miles

2) It's clear North Carolina is a big prize in the realignment wars and Duke could be considered attached to the hip to UNC. The UNC-Duke rivalry (the whole topic of this thread) means something (at least in men's basketball). Cal-Stanford is certainly a big rivalry but neither school moves the needle athletically and collectively they aren't the same as Carolina-Duke. Last week their game got almost 3 million viewers post Coach K-Roy Williams, more than probably half of the football Big Ten games this season. Has any Cal or Stanford football game this season got close to 3 million viewers?

3) At least according to this board, the SEC has a clear interest in North Carolina and depending on who you ask willing to take Duke as well. For sure, California and Stanford don't fit in the SEC as well geographically as they do in the Big Ten (they fit in neither but at least UCLA and USC are in the Big Ten while the furthest West schools in the SEC are Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M).

That's why Duke trumps both Cal and Stanford (and I like Berkeley).

(02-07-2023 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 08:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The B1G whiffed on OUT ...

In order for the Big Ten to whiff on "OUT", wouldn't they have had to try a shot? It seems like they declined to take aim at all.

It's reasonable to suppose that the SEC had the inside track all along, but what seems suspiciously like a Big Ten view that Oklahoma was "not good enough" academically to invite into the Big Ten is evidence of their ongoing irrationality.

And not good enough for the ACC either when Oklahoma was substituted for Texas A&M in a deal that included Texas, Kansas and Notre Dame.
Evidently the PAC was willing to take Oklahoma, but only if Texas was part of the deal.

Assuming this is correct, I would also assume this was way before OU's recent string of Big 12 Championships and CFP appearances (all losses but still appearances). We are judging excluding Oklahoma based on late 2010's Oklahoma and not on early 2010's Oklahoma. This year's Oklahoma team was mediocre (horrible considering their expectations). I would believe the Big 10 or ACC would make more of an academic concession for a top performing Oklahoma. They're not (or shouldn't) for a mediocre performing Oklahoma. The Big Ten already took Nebraska and is stuck with an academic deadweight that is mediocre in football and (until they took UCLA/USC) too damn far West.

(02-08-2023 09:54 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 08:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-07-2023 05:06 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The B1G whiffed on OUT ...

In order for the Big Ten to whiff on "OUT", wouldn't they have had to try a shot? It seems like they declined to take aim at all.

It's reasonable to suppose that the SEC had the inside track all along, but what seems suspiciously like a Big Ten view that Oklahoma was "not good enough" academically to invite into the Big Ten is evidence of their ongoing irrationality.

And not good enough for the ACC either when Oklahoma was substituted for Texas A&M in a deal that included Texas, Kansas and Notre Dame.
Evidently the PAC was willing to take Oklahoma, but only if Texas was part of the deal.

Assuming this is correct, I would also assume this was way before OU's recent string of Big 12 Championships and CFP appearances (all losses but still appearances). We are judging excluding Oklahoma based on late 2010's Oklahoma and not on early 2010's Oklahoma. This year's Oklahoma team was mediocre (horrible considering their expectations). I would believe the Big 10 or ACC would make more of an academic concession for a top performing Oklahoma. They're not (or shouldn't) for a mediocre performing Oklahoma. The Big Ten already took Nebraska and is stuck with an academic deadweight that is mediocre in football and (until they took UCLA/USC) too damn far West.

BCS title games for OU
2000, 2003, 2004, 2008

Winning % in the 2000s:
1. Boise St.
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma

They were better in the 2000s.

Are UNC and Duke post-Coach K and Williams valuable enough to make the SEC or BIG? As a package or even just singularly? Being another Indiana by the end of the GOR is a risk those two must be considering when finding away around the GOR. Same with Clemson in football- hard to see those brands ever having higher valuations.

(02-11-2023 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Are UNC and Duke post-Coach K and Williams valuable enough to make the SEC or BIG? As a package or even just singularly? Being another Indiana by the end of the GOR is a risk those two must be considering when finding away around the GOR. Same with Clemson in football- hard to see those brands ever having higher valuations.

Good to see you back. UNC's nearly 11 million market pays about half of their entry just in SECN subscription fees. So, yes to UNC, although you pose a possible scenario UNC won't stay down. Duke? Well, they have before. You also raise some issues that I've raised with regard to Clemson and a move by the SEC to 18 instead of 20. Florida State is still that very needed 2nd Florida School and gives the SEC a super majority of the college sports viewers in Florida. The better question may be the more highly valued, but small state, Kansas which fits the new SEC West vs North Carolina with its large market. That would be an interesting discussion among the SEC presidents to overhear. The nod might depend on ESPN preferences.

(02-11-2023 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Are UNC and Duke post-Coach K and Williams valuable enough to make the SEC or BIG? As a package or even just singularly? Being another Indiana by the end of the GOR is a risk those two must be considering when finding away around the GOR. Same with Clemson in football- hard to see those brands ever having higher valuations.

North Carolina has an excellent overall athletic program.
The Tar Heels have more top ten finishes in the Learfield Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame).
Carolina is one of the few AAU schools in the south and is ranked among the top 15 research institutions (by dollars) in the country.

(02-11-2023 04:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:54 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Are UNC and Duke post-Coach K and Williams valuable enough to make the SEC or BIG? As a package or even just singularly? Being another Indiana by the end of the GOR is a risk those two must be considering when finding away around the GOR. Same with Clemson in football- hard to see those brands ever having higher valuations.

North Carolina has an excellent overall athletic program.
The Tar Heels have more top ten finishes in the Learfield Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame).
Carolina is one of the few AAU schools in the south and is ranked among the top 15 research institutions (by dollars) in the country.

Looks like UNC has an impressive 22. FSU 5 of 'em. So the ACC must be sucking wind comparatively. Stanford's got 28 and took #1 a whopping 25 times. Obviously some schools just support a lot of different sports and rack up the points. And the ACC has more than its fair share of smaller schools that don't.