Anonymous wrote:“Part of me thinks that this is just punishment for two universities that display intolerance for different opinions with an attitude of superiority,”

Bingo. I have a nephew who graduated from Berkeley a few years ago. He & his idiot father (my brother) were proud that the kid was involved in protests that blocked freeways, & also started fires to keep invited speakers from speaking. Many folks at these 2 colleges think such actions prove they are openminded, and they are too self-absorbed to realize the irony in that belief.

+1

You understand.

“Part of me thinks that this is just punishment for two universities that display intolerance for different opinions with an attitude of superiority,”

Bingo. I have a nephew who graduated from Berkeley a few years ago. He & his idiot father (my brother) were proud that the kid was involved in protests that blocked freeways, & also started fires to keep invited speakers from speaking. Many folks at these 2 colleges think such actions prove they are openminded, and they are too self-absorbed to realize the irony in that belief.

I find it hard to believe that athletes will stop competing in Olympic sports because Stanford has become irrelevant in college sports. They will find their way to other schools.

People making these arguments that Cal or Stanford need to be in certain conference because of academics or Olympic sports are not paying attention to who is driving the bus in college sports. It is football and the tv networks.

Stanford may make a nice partner with ND if ND is forced to join a conference but that is about it.

In that the ACC was close to adding them shows how much FSU, Clemson, and UNC interests no longer align with the other members. A divorce is coming.

Still thinking about Stanford and Cal. Maybe both will stay in the Pac-12 along with OSU & WSU and rebuild it to a conference with at least 8 teams--which is the NCAA minimum.

Just doesn't seem right to me that Stanford & UCal-Berkeley are homeless. (Although if one walks around San Francisco, it doesn't seem unnatural either.)

Part of me thinks that this is just punishment for two universities that display intolerance for different opinions with an attitude of superiority, while most of my thoughts are sad about what we as a country may lose regarding their athletic programs which produce a high number of Olympic athletes. Maybe we should make American football an Olympic sport ? That might solve everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I can’t believe is that there are now 3 new pages on the Big10. Today is ACC depart day. People have been predicting the departure. Where are they to say we were wrong. Or say they will leave next year which is simply not true. Where are the people who say it was just money and the GOR can just be broken. Where are the people who said the SEC or the Big10 even wanted FSU because the press now indicates that neither conference wants them.

People have been talking stupid here all week and now they just move on to Big10?

There is zero chance FSU and others stay in the ACC until 2036. The ACC benefits 6-7 schools willing to take a check but not invest in athletics. Just because FSU and others did not announce today does not mean that they are not working towards that goal or that the GOR cannot be broken. It is not a matter of what the BIG or SEC wants. It is what the tv companies want. They don't want to pay for free riders schools whether they have good academics. See Cal and Stanford.

Every league has free riders - do you think people care about Northwestern or Rutgers or Ole Miss or Vanderbilt? We'll get to see a league based on parity soon enough with the new Big 12. I'm guessing that they all beat up on each other enough that none end up with great records.

Well, seems clear that someone hasn't spent much time in the Deep South. Football is akin to a religion and a culture in the Deep South. Ole Miss is fine. If you had to pick on another SEC team besides Vanderbilt, the better target might have been Mississippi State.

Anonymous wrote:I think the B1G should consider Colorado and Arizona so that the states all touch across the country and scheduling becomes manageable. They are both flagships in big states (Colorado has its state all to itself) Arizona has ASU which dilutes it a bit but tons of Big Ten alumni in both states. I would end it there. Trapping the SEC in the southeast.

CSU = Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado has about 21,000 full-time undergraduate students.

Univ. of Colorado in Boulder has about 28,000 full-time undergrads.

Both are nice, fun, attractive towns, but Boulder is more upscale & expensive.

I think the B1G should consider Colorado and Arizona so that the states all touch across the country and scheduling becomes manageable. They are both flagships in big states (Colorado has its state all to itself) Arizona has ASU which dilutes it a bit but tons of Big Ten alumni in both states. I would end it there. Trapping the SEC in the southeast.

Agree. However, the artcle makes a great point about UCal-Berkeley and Stanford producing Olympic athletes and names prominent figures lobbying on behalf of Stanford and Cal to get into the ACC.

A more commonsense article:

https://clutchpoints.com/college-football-acc-must-do-florida-state-clemson-not-joining-sec-big-ten

CFB writers gotta get clicks and the most popular offseason story died yesterday

It ain't over until the....

https://si.com/college/2023/08/16/florida-state-acc-exit-watch-2024-deadline-passing

Some interesting tidbits of info. contained in the article linked above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I can’t believe is that there are now 3 new pages on the Big10. Today is ACC depart day. People have been predicting the departure. Where are they to say we were wrong. Or say they will leave next year which is simply not true. Where are the people who say it was just money and the GOR can just be broken. Where are the people who said the SEC or the Big10 even wanted FSU because the press now indicates that neither conference wants them.

People have been talking stupid here all week and now they just move on to Big10?

There is zero chance FSU and others stay in the ACC until 2036. The ACC benefits 6-7 schools willing to take a check but not invest in athletics. Just because FSU and others did not announce today does not mean that they are not working towards that goal or that the GOR cannot be broken. It is not a matter of what the BIG or SEC wants. It is what the tv companies want. They don't want to pay for free riders schools whether they have good academics. See Cal and Stanford.

Every league has free riders - do you think people care about Northwestern or Rutgers or Ole Miss or Vanderbilt? We'll get to see a league based on parity soon enough with the new Big 12. I'm guessing that they all beat up on each other enough that none end up with great records.

Not a big Rutgers fan but after it joined with UMD the big ten media payout doubled due to the market. Rutgers has a lot of Potential as the only Big Time football venue in the Northeast. Northwestern rolling the Big Ten teams right into Chicago is also an asset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I can’t believe is that there are now 3 new pages on the Big10. Today is ACC depart day. People have been predicting the departure. Where are they to say we were wrong. Or say they will leave next year which is simply not true. Where are the people who say it was just money and the GOR can just be broken. Where are the people who said the SEC or the Big10 even wanted FSU because the press now indicates that neither conference wants them.

People have been talking stupid here all week and now they just move on to Big10?

There is zero chance FSU and others stay in the ACC until 2036. The ACC benefits 6-7 schools willing to take a check but not invest in athletics. Just because FSU and others did not announce today does not mean that they are not working towards that goal or that the GOR cannot be broken. It is not a matter of what the BIG or SEC wants. It is what the tv companies want. They don't want to pay for free riders schools whether they have good academics. See Cal and Stanford.

Zero chance? They may leave early but likely just a couple of years out from the end of the GOR where the cost would not be awful. There is no other way to look at this year and the statements made other than to say if they felt they could have left for a manageable amount of pain they would have. We can fight all day about the GOR but when you add whatever it would take plus the exit fee, the pain was too high. Pain gets less but maybe still too high until closer to 2036.

But the rest of the ACC will extract something from them for their comments and the no vote. Life will not be great. Word is that even Clemson is sick of them.

It would not shock me if something were to happen to cause everyone including FSU to extend the GOR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I can’t believe is that there are now 3 new pages on the Big10. Today is ACC depart day. People have been predicting the departure. Where are they to say we were wrong. Or say they will leave next year which is simply not true. Where are the people who say it was just money and the GOR can just be broken. Where are the people who said the SEC or the Big10 even wanted FSU because the press now indicates that neither conference wants them.

People have been talking stupid here all week and now they just move on to Big10?

There is zero chance FSU and others stay in the ACC until 2036. The ACC benefits 6-7 schools willing to take a check but not invest in athletics. Just because FSU and others did not announce today does not mean that they are not working towards that goal or that the GOR cannot be broken. It is not a matter of what the BIG or SEC wants. It is what the tv companies want. They don't want to pay for free riders schools whether they have good academics. See Cal and Stanford.

Every league has free riders - do you think people care about Northwestern or Rutgers or Ole Miss or Vanderbilt? We'll get to see a league based on parity soon enough with the new Big 12. I'm guessing that they all beat up on each other enough that none end up with great records.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Johns Hopkins is a member of the B1G lacrosse league and is a member if the CIC.

Johns Hopkins University is continually the leader in R&D expenditures while U Michigan seems to always be #3 behind UC-San Francisco medical research.

JHU's 2021 R&D expenditures were an incredible $3,181,385,000--almost twice as much as third place research powerhouse University of Washington at Seattle.

2 billion of that is from JHUAPL which has very little to actually do with JHU proper. It really shouldn’t be combined. I’ve worked for APL for close to 20 years and I’ve met exactly one JHU professor in that time.

I concur. It’s really a federal scientific agency and not an academic division that JHU gets credit for. It’s entirely funded by the US government and employs 8,000 people.

I wonder if the same is true of Cal and Lawrence Berkely National Lab? (They also share in the management contract for Lawrence Livermore & Los Alamos).

It also looks like one way to get your R&D numbers up is to operate a big research hospital system. Which is probably why Texas just announced the construction of a new research hospital in Austin in partnership with MD Anderson.

I doubt it. Look at MIT; they don’t add in MIT Lincoln Labs to their “research” budget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Johns Hopkins is a member of the B1G lacrosse league and is a member if the CIC.

Johns Hopkins University is continually the leader in R&D expenditures while U Michigan seems to always be #3 behind UC-San Francisco medical research.

JHU's 2021 R&D expenditures were an incredible $3,181,385,000--almost twice as much as third place research powerhouse University of Washington at Seattle.

2 billion of that is from JHUAPL which has very little to actually do with JHU proper. It really shouldn’t be combined. I’ve worked for APL for close to 20 years and I’ve met exactly one JHU professor in that time.

I concur. It’s really a federal scientific agency and not an academic division that JHU gets credit for. It’s entirely funded by the US government and employs 8,000 people.

I wonder if the same is true of Cal and Lawrence Berkely National Lab? (They also share in the management contract for Lawrence Livermore & Los Alamos).

It also looks like one way to get your R&D numbers up is to operate a big research hospital system. Which is probably why Texas just announced the construction of a new research hospital in Austin in partnership with MD Anderson.

I doubt it. Look