(01-13-2024 04:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 03:02 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 02:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 01:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 01:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t think politics had anything to do with it. As you mentioned, the Bay schools are a great institutional fit with the Big 10. It came down to two factors:

Stanford and Cal aren’t great football powers
Stanford and Cal don’t have giant fanbases that rabidly consume college sports

The same could be said about Maryland and Rutgers.

Right, but remember that decade ago everyone was focused on adding markets for conference network subscription fees.

Fast forward to 2023 and the revenue model was completely different and focused on brands.

The Terps and Scarlet Knights benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Had they not got the call when they did, Maryland would still be in the ACC and Rutgers’ fate is a total guess—ACC? AAC? Indy w/UConn?

UConn and Rutgers would have ended up in the ACC with Maryland. The ACC planned to expand to 16 once they added Pittsburgh and Syrcacuse. Had those plans gone through, Louisiville would be in the Big XII with Cincinatti. But, that's not how things happened.

Interesting take but where’s the evidence? If the ACC also had their eyes on Rutgers and UConn why didn’t they add them at the same time as Pitt and Cuse? Why did they pass on UConn and take Louisville?

It was reported that Boston College would have blocked the move if UConn was brought in. That and the football schools in the south didn't want another deadweight program to have to play. So, the ACC compromised with Louisiville.

(01-13-2024 04:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 03:02 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 02:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 01:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 01:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t think politics had anything to do with it. As you mentioned, the Bay schools are a great institutional fit with the Big 10. It came down to two factors:

Stanford and Cal aren’t great football powers
Stanford and Cal don’t have giant fanbases that rabidly consume college sports

The same could be said about Maryland and Rutgers.

Right, but remember that decade ago everyone was focused on adding markets for conference network subscription fees.

Fast forward to 2023 and the revenue model was completely different and focused on brands.

The Terps and Scarlet Knights benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Had they not got the call when they did, Maryland would still be in the ACC and Rutgers’ fate is a total guess—ACC? AAC? Indy w/UConn?

UConn and Rutgers would have ended up in the ACC with Maryland. The ACC planned to expand to 16 once they added Pittsburgh and Syrcacuse. Had those plans gone through, Louisiville would be in the Big XII with Cincinatti. But, that's not how things happened.

Interesting take but where’s the evidence? If the ACC also had their eyes on Rutgers and UConn why didn’t they add them at the same time as Pitt and Cuse? Why did they pass on UConn and take Louisville?

There is none


As to your last question, Louisville was added at the behest of the football-first schools and BC. Others wanted UConn.

Guys!!! Remember what JSchmack said about Fordham basketball?? Cal & Stanford have a "Fordham" problem!!!

(01-13-2024 05:19 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Guys!!! Remember what JSchmack said about Fordham basketball?? Cal & Stanford have a "Fordham" problem!!!

Meanwhile, Fordham Schmacked J's boys today

(12-27-2023 03:53 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  The A-10's problem is that they have (no heavyweights but) NINE programs that are all among the top 125 programs in the country.


The analogy I like to give for basketball conferences is: Imagine big fishing nets hanging near the surface of the water. Each net is a conference, and the members of the conference are people trapped in the net. Your place in the conference standings is where you are in the net (last place is at the bottom with a dozen people on top of them). The conference's OOC win percentage determines how much of your net is underwater. With the waterline being "Not making the NCAA Tourney."

If you're Gonzaga, you're standing on top of seven guys, who are gurgling and drowning, with Saint Mary's tugging at your belt.

The Big 12 has the most of their net above water, and a few guys at the bottom are being held underwater by the feet of 8 people.

The A-10 is nine teams with water between their chin and eyebrows, standing on six others.

The above is what I am talking about. Just replace basketball for football!!

(01-13-2024 05:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 04:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 03:02 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 02:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 01:15 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  The same could be said about Maryland and Rutgers.

Right, but remember that decade ago everyone was focused on adding markets for conference network subscription fees.

Fast forward to 2023 and the revenue model was completely different and focused on brands.

The Terps and Scarlet Knights benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Had they not got the call when they did, Maryland would still be in the ACC and Rutgers’ fate is a total guess—ACC? AAC? Indy w/UConn?

UConn and Rutgers would have ended up in the ACC with Maryland. The ACC planned to expand to 16 once they added Pittsburgh and Syrcacuse. Had those plans gone through, Louisiville would be in the Big XII with Cincinatti. But, that's not how things happened.

Interesting take but where’s the evidence? If the ACC also had their eyes on Rutgers and UConn why didn’t they add them at the same time as Pitt and Cuse? Why did they pass on UConn and take Louisville?

There is none


As to your last question, Louisville was added at the behest of the football-first schools and BC. Others wanted UConn.

Here's some articles on the matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bcinter...ame-to-acc

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnatio...ealignment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication...y.amp.html

(01-13-2024 06:21 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 05:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 04:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 03:02 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 02:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Right, but remember that decade ago everyone was focused on adding markets for conference network subscription fees.

Fast forward to 2023 and the revenue model was completely different and focused on brands.

The Terps and Scarlet Knights benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Had they not got the call when they did, Maryland would still be in the ACC and Rutgers’ fate is a total guess—ACC? AAC? Indy w/UConn?

UConn and Rutgers would have ended up in the ACC with Maryland. The ACC planned to expand to 16 once they added Pittsburgh and Syrcacuse. Had those plans gone through, Louisiville would be in the Big XII with Cincinatti. But, that's not how things happened.

Interesting take but where’s the evidence? If the ACC also had their eyes on Rutgers and UConn why didn’t they add them at the same time as Pitt and Cuse? Why did they pass on UConn and take Louisville?

There is none


As to your last question, Louisville was added at the behest of the football-first schools and BC. Others wanted UConn.

Here's some articles on the matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bcinter...ame-to-acc

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnatio...ealignment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication...y.amp.html

No offense to your efforts to find links on the topic, but the first two are just speculative rumors that UConn OR Rutgers could be a companion add with ND as a full member. The 3rd is an opinion piece that concedes that ND as a full member isn’t happening and recommends taking the northeastern pair. It’s not really a smoking gun that the the ACC was seriously considering the duo.

To the premise, if the B1G included California and Stanford:
1) B1G would be at 20.
2) ACC would not have expanded with SMU - at least not when they did.
3) AAC may or may not have added Army football.

That’s it, essentially.

The real question is: What does the ACC do in light of the current situation with Florida St and their supposed sub-15 issue with the GoR?

I suspect they realize they are screwed unless they add a number of non-power schools. I suspect the following:
1) Add SMU and Tulane.
2) If Florida St leaves, add South Florida.
3) If others leave, they have options but I suspect Connecticut, Memphis, and Temple are at the top of the list.

Let’s say the SEC adds 4 from the ACC: Clemson, Florida St, North Carolina, and Virginia. The B1G and SEC both sit at 20. The ACC, already have added SMU and Tulane, add Connecticut, Memphis, South Florida, and Temple, sits at 16/17. XII sits at 16.

B1G
California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Oregon, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Virginia

XII
Arizona, Arizona St, Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, West Virginia

ACC
Boston College, Connecticut, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, North Carolina St, (Notre Dame), Pittsburgh, SMU, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple, Tulane, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

(01-13-2024 06:55 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  To the premise, if the B1G included California and Stanford:
1) B1G would be at 20.
2) ACC would not have expanded with SMU - at least not when they did.
3) AAC may or may not have added Army football.

That’s it, essentially.

The real question is: What does the ACC do in light of the current situation with Florida St and their supposed sub-15 issue with the GoR?

I suspect they realize they are screwed unless they add a number of non-power schools. I suspect the following:
1) Add SMU and Tulane.
2) If Florida St leaves, add South Florida.
3) If others leave, they have options but I suspect Connecticut, Memphis, and Temple are at the top of the list.

Let’s say the SEC adds 4 from the ACC: Clemson, Florida St, North Carolina, and Virginia. The B1G and SEC both sit at 20. The ACC, already have added SMU and Tulane, add Connecticut, Memphis, South Florida, and Temple, sits at 16/17. XII sits at 16.

B1G
California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Oregon, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Virginia

XII
Arizona, Arizona St, Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, West Virginia

ACC
Boston College, Connecticut, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, North Carolina St, (Notre Dame), Pittsburgh, SMU, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple, Tulane, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

The AAC backfills with FIU, MTSU, and WKU. The C-USA calls up more FCS teams. In addition to Deleware and Kennesaw State, they also call up Austin Peay, EKU, Stephen F. Austin, and Tarleton State

Oregon State and Washington State play as FBS independents while working behind the scenes with the the heads of the MWC to merge the entire conference under the PAC banner.

(01-13-2024 06:55 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  To the premise, if the B1G included California and Stanford:
1) B1G would be at 20.
2) ACC would not have expanded with SMU - at least not when they did.
3) AAC may or may not have added Army football.

That’s it, essentially.

The real question is: What does the ACC do in light of the current situation with Florida St and their supposed sub-15 issue with the GoR?

I suspect they realize they are screwed unless they add a number of non-power schools. I suspect the following:
1) Add SMU and Tulane.
2) If Florida St leaves, add South Florida.
3) If others leave, they have options but I suspect Connecticut, Memphis, and Temple are at the top of the list.

Let’s say the SEC adds 4 from the ACC: Clemson, Florida St, North Carolina, and Virginia. The B1G and SEC both sit at 20. The ACC, already have added SMU and Tulane, add Connecticut, Memphis, South Florida, and Temple, sits at 16/17. XII sits at 16.

B1G
California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Oregon, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Virginia

XII
Arizona, Arizona St, Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, West Virginia

ACC
Boston College, Connecticut, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, North Carolina St, (Notre Dame), Pittsburgh, SMU, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple, Tulane, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

I do think if and when FSU leaves the ACC adds South Florida

(01-13-2024 06:55 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  To the premise, if the B1G included California and Stanford:
1) B1G would be at 20.
2) ACC would not have expanded with SMU - at least not when they did.
3) AAC may or may not have added Army football.

That’s it, essentially.

The real question is: What does the ACC do in light of the current situation with Florida St and their supposed sub-15 issue with the GoR?

I suspect they realize they are screwed unless they add a number of non-power schools. I suspect the following:
1) Add SMU and Tulane.
2) If Florida St leaves, add South Florida.
3) If others leave, they have options but I suspect Connecticut, Memphis, and Temple are at the top of the list.

Let’s say the SEC adds 4 from the ACC: Clemson, Florida St, North Carolina, and Virginia. The B1G and SEC both sit at 20. The ACC, already have added SMU and Tulane, add Connecticut, Memphis, South Florida, and Temple, sits at 16/17. XII sits at 16.

B1G
California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Oregon, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Virginia

XII
Arizona, Arizona St, Baylor, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, West Virginia

ACC
Boston College, Connecticut, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, North Carolina St, (Notre Dame), Pittsburgh, SMU, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple, Tulane, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Cal/Stan/SMU worked out for the ACC because of the ACC network subscriber fees that they brought from their states.

If the ACC is worried about the 15 member threshold and needs to add 3 quick I’m not sure they can grab a trio of G5s that gives them that.

I’d imagine the 3 they’d look at would be SMU, Tulane, and UConn but that’s not enough added population. (USF is naturally blocked until FSU is actually gone).

(01-13-2024 03:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 12:51 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 12:38 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's hard to understand this notion that Stanford doesn't invest in its athletics when it routinely wins Directors' Cups in a way like they own the thing. It's the football issue at hand here.

But, I do think there's something to the politics the duo brings. The ACC will see how they behave within a bigger group. And I think they fit institutionally quite well in the ACC...but, the drama.

They would have been an institutional fit in the BIG. I think the politics and the drama those two universities have was a big turn off for the BIG, and why they rejected both of them.

There were rumors of behind-the-scenes drama.

And the Cal maneuvering concerning UCLA wasn't a good look either.

There were also reports that USC (and some Big10 schools) didn't want any more California schools due to recruiting.

Whatever the case, Cal said that the Big10 said in no uncertain terms that no iteration of them plus Stanford, OR, or WA was getting an invite.

OR and WA got in, in a last minute desperation move at partial shares.

Cal and Stanford got in to the ACC in a lat minute desperation move at partial shares.

It kinda looks like the situation in the PAC was mis-handled, top to bottom.

No need to resort to rumors, just look at the tv ratings and overall (lack of) fan enthusiasm for Cal and Stanford in football. They were iffy for the big 12 and ACC, that’s not the type of school that the P2 want.

(01-13-2024 04:23 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 03:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 12:51 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 12:38 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's hard to understand this notion that Stanford doesn't invest in its athletics when it routinely wins Directors' Cups in a way like they own the thing. It's the football issue at hand here.

But, I do think there's something to the politics the duo brings. The ACC will see how they behave within a bigger group. And I think they fit institutionally quite well in the ACC...but, the drama.

They would have been an institutional fit in the BIG. I think the politics and the drama those two universities have was a big turn off for the BIG, and why they rejected both of them.

There were rumors of behind-the-scenes drama.

And the Cal maneuvering concerning UCLA wasn't a good look either.

There were also reports that USC (and some Big10 schools) didn't want any more California schools due to recruiting.

Whatever the case, Cal said that the Big10 said in no uncertain terms that no iteration of them plus Stanford, OR, or WA was getting an invite.

OR and WA got in, in a last minute desperation move at partial shares.

Cal and Stanford got in to the ACC in a lat minute desperation move at partial shares.

It kinda looks like the situation in the PAC was mis-handled, top to bottom.

Cal pitching a fit about UCLA leaving is probably another reason why both schools didn't get in. Hopefully Cal has learned their lesson, but I doubt it. Also, having the wholr syate to themselves could help UCLA and USC come back to prominence.

I think the ACC move is a short-term fix.

It's sounding like schools are really not happy about the travel.

I still think that if Cal gets their stadium debt situation figured out, they may drop out of fbs football, and join the BigWest.

And once Cal is squared away, I think Stanford will either stay whereever Notre Dame is, or they may make another run at the Big10.

(01-13-2024 09:33 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 04:23 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 03:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 12:51 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 12:38 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's hard to understand this notion that Stanford doesn't invest in its athletics when it routinely wins Directors' Cups in a way like they own the thing. It's the football issue at hand here.

But, I do think there's something to the politics the duo brings. The ACC will see how they behave within a bigger group. And I think they fit institutionally quite well in the ACC...but, the drama.

They would have been an institutional fit in the BIG. I think the politics and the drama those two universities have was a big turn off for the BIG, and why they rejected both of them.

There were rumors of behind-the-scenes drama.

And the Cal maneuvering concerning UCLA wasn't a good look either.

There were also reports that USC (and some Big10 schools) didn't want any more California schools due to recruiting.

Whatever the case, Cal said that the Big10 said in no uncertain terms that no iteration of them plus Stanford, OR, or WA was getting an invite.

OR and WA got in, in a last minute desperation move at partial shares.

Cal and Stanford got in to the ACC in a lat minute desperation move at partial shares.

It kinda looks like the situation in the PAC was mis-handled, top to bottom.

Cal pitching a fit about UCLA leaving is probably another reason why both schools didn't get in. Hopefully Cal has learned their lesson, but I doubt it. Also, having the wholr syate to themselves could help UCLA and USC come back to prominence.

I think the ACC move is a short-term fix.

It's sounding like schools are really not happy about the travel.

I still think that if Cal gets their stadium debt situation figured out, they may drop out of fbs football, and join the BigWest.

And once Cal is squared away, I think Stanford will either stay whereever Notre Dame is, or they may make another run at the Big10.

At this stage all far flung conference expansion moves are only as long as the next TV contract. If the college football bubble bursts, do you think UCLA is going to stick around in the Big Ten?

The travel issue has been addressed with neutral site meets in Dallas. Traveling to Dallas is easy. It's one of the reasons expansion was approved. I'm surprised people still don't know this.

Cal is not dropping football anytime soon.

(01-13-2024 06:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 06:21 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 05:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 04:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 03:02 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  UConn and Rutgers would have ended up in the ACC with Maryland. The ACC planned to expand to 16 once they added Pittsburgh and Syrcacuse. Had those plans gone through, Louisiville would be in the Big XII with Cincinatti. But, that's not how things happened.

Interesting take but where’s the evidence? If the ACC also had their eyes on Rutgers and UConn why didn’t they add them at the same time as Pitt and Cuse? Why did they pass on UConn and take Louisville?

There is none


As to your last question, Louisville was added at the behest of the football-first schools and BC. Others wanted UConn.

Here's some articles on the matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bcinter...ame-to-acc

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnatio...ealignment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication...y.amp.html

No offense to your efforts to find links on the topic, but the first two are just speculative rumors that UConn OR Rutgers could be a companion add with ND as a full member. The 3rd is an opinion piece that concedes that ND as a full member isn’t happening and recommends taking the northeastern pair. It’s not really a smoking gun that the the ACC was seriously considering the duo.

This paragraph from the Rutgers article concerning the conventional wisdom surrounding ND in March 2012 made me smile:

"I mean, this isn't really new news. It's no secret that the ACC will at least be courting Notre Dame behind-the-scenes if the Irish finally decide to forego football independence. Most assume that Notre Dame will a) eventually have to join a conference and b) that conference will be the Big Ten, not the ACC, but I've got to think the ACC has some appeal to the Domers."


https://www.bcinterruption.com/2012/3/6/...ame-to-acc


Here we are almost 12 years later. Many thought at the time there was no way ND football would still be independent in 2024. It was widely assumed then that ND football would have to join a conference soon.

Has any "conventional wisdom" assumption regarding college football realignment been so often advanced but wrong every time over the past thirty years than the idea that ND had no choice but to join the Big Ten in full ??

The Big Ten is waiting on the ACC schools to come available. They weren't going to fill up 2 spots prematurely. If they don't get any of the desired ACC schools then Stanford and Cal will be admitted shortly after.

(01-14-2024 08:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 06:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 06:21 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 05:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 04:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Interesting take but where’s the evidence? If the ACC also had their eyes on Rutgers and UConn why didn’t they add them at the same time as Pitt and Cuse? Why did they pass on UConn and take Louisville?

There is none


As to your last question, Louisville was added at the behest of the football-first schools and BC. Others wanted UConn.

Here's some articles on the matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bcinter...ame-to-acc

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnatio...ealignment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication...y.amp.html

No offense to your efforts to find links on the topic, but the first two are just speculative rumors that UConn OR Rutgers could be a companion add with ND as a full member. The 3rd is an opinion piece that concedes that ND as a full member isn’t happening and recommends taking the northeastern pair. It’s not really a smoking gun that the the ACC was seriously considering the duo.

This paragraph from the Rutgers article concerning the conventional wisdom surrounding ND in March 2012 made me smile:

"I mean, this isn't really new news. It's no secret that the ACC will at least be courting Notre Dame behind-the-scenes if the Irish finally decide to forego football independence. Most assume that Notre Dame will a) eventually have to join a conference and b) that conference will be the Big Ten, not the ACC, but I've got to think the ACC has some appeal to the Domers."


https://www.bcinterruption.com/2012/3/6/...ame-to-acc


Here we are almost 12 years later. Many thought at the time there was no way ND football would still be independent in 2024. It was widely assumed then that ND football would have to join a conference soon.

Has any "conventional wisdom" assumption regarding college football realignment been so often advanced but wrong every time over the past thirty years than the idea that ND had no choice but to join the Big Ten in full ??

I never thought ND would be in a conference by now. I can't really blame the conventional wisdom since any rational person would never allow a school/company it competes with to be able to "have it's cake and eat it too." I wouldn't claim conventional wisdom failed here since most participants are acting irrationally.

(01-13-2024 12:21 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-13-2024 11:30 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The networks rejected them. Didn’t even want to give them a few million. Maybe you revisit it if they start investing in football/bball again.

I doubt very seriously that both schools are going to heavily invest in athletics ever again. Don't be surprised if they drop football in the near future. They'll have to when the California state legislature bans tackle football all together.

Please stop with these political potshots.

Also, Stanford runs the single best top-to-bottom athletic department in the country. They’ve also done more in *football* in the past decade than any of the schools that you purport to cheer for. I honestly think some people have some weird reverse thing where they want to feel somehow superior compared to Stanford and Cal by constantly suggesting that they’re going to downgrade athletically. Outside of that top 20 or so football brands, they’re more important athletically, have a larger and more important market, clearly runs circles around nearly everyone academically, and would be picked over even most P2 schools if we were just starting one of those “realignment drafts” from scratch. Sorry - unless you’re in that true Michigan/Ohio State/Alabama/Notre Dame-tier, no should be feeling like Icarus in thinking that they’re somehow more valuable than Stanford and Cal. You’re not. There are a handful of elite brands and then everyone else is either based on filling some sort of specific athletic need or is luckily where they’re at due to historical reasons.

By the way, the Cal/Stanford move to the ACC is essentially a direct counter to all of these “They’re downgrading athletics” arguments. They’re taking a financial paycut to send all of their sports teams to the opposite coast of the country even when there were actually pretty good local Olympic sports leagues with the WCC and Big West in their region. Cal and Stanford clearly want to be in the power conference space where they can recruit the very best elite-of-the-elite (not just merely good) athletes that can win Olympic medals. I don’t understand why so many people don’t see this with respect to their sports programs where they are NOT the Ivy model.

(01-14-2024 10:11 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  The Big Ten is waiting on the ACC schools to come available. They weren't going to fill up 2 spots prematurely. If they don't get any of the desired ACC schools then Stanford and Cal will be admitted shortly after.

I don't think the BIG is going to get any ACC teams. The only teams that have any real value are Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and Virginia. I think the SEC is going to scoop up those teams before the BIG does because they don't want the BIG encroaching on their territory.

There are other options that the BIG could take, such as Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami (FL) and Pittsburgh. However, their overall value may be over estimated. Plus, Penn State will not allow Pittsburgh into the conference, and adding Duke without North Carolina wouldn't make sense. That leaves Georgia Tech and Miami (FL). The SEC wouldn't care if the BIG adding them, but they would keep their eye on them in case they started to out recruit them in Florida and Georgia. However, I doubt they'll be added because their value is being over estimated.