Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 07:34     Subject: Re:College Football--Big Ten Expansion
"How do we elevate the Big Ten brand ?"

Asked if Big ten Conference was done expanding at 18 teams, the University of Iowa President responded that she "can't comment" on what they are discussing.

https://outkick.com/iowa-president-hints-at-even-more-big-ten-expansion/

What do these comments suggest ? Which schools would "elevate the Big Ten brand" if not chasing dollars ?

Notre Dame would elevate the Big Ten brand and increase revenue as would adding Texas which is scheduled to move to the SEC in 2024.

UNC-Chapel Hill would elevate the Big Ten brand as would Georgia Tech.

Apparently, the Big Ten is currently engaged in discussions. My thought is that only Notre Dame or Texas would be serious targets at this time as UNC is tied up by the ACC GOR agreement.

Could Texas or Notre Dame move to the Big Ten Conference soon ? Texas has not yet officially joined the SEC. Texas A&M is already an SEC member school and does not want the University of Texas in the SEC.

Can anyone offer additional insights or thoughts about the possibility of U Texas joining the Big Ten Conference instead of the SEC ?

Anyone think that the Big Ten Conference is in discussions with Notre Dame ? Or UNC ?
Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 06:24     Subject: Re:College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Now that Stanford & Cal have a new home in a Power 4 Conference, does this free-up Notre Dame to get closer to the Big Ten ?

Or does this move Notre Dame closer to the ACC ?

Notre Dame needed traditional rival Stanford to find a home in a Power 4 Conference in order to maintain its "strength of schedule" rating for CFP consideration. Now that Stanford football is legitimized, does anyone think that Notre Dame is seriously interested in playing football against Cal or SMU ?

Or does this make Notre Dame a stronger independent in college football ?
Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 04:19     Subject: Re:College Football--Big Ten Expansion
The effect on recruiting by joining the ACC will be different for Cal & Stanford than it will be for SMU.

SMU will thrive in the ACC. Membership in a Power 4 Conference plus te legalization of NIL money for student-athletes will work in SMU's favor. SMU can afford to buy the best athletes and its boosters are willing to prove it.

Stanford & Cal are likely to lose recruits due to the physical & psychological burdens that come with frequent coast-to-coast travel while attempting to pose as student-athletes.

Other ACC teams will be fine as travel from the East Coast to the West Coast will not be frequent as the overwhelming majority of ACC teams are located in the East.
Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 04:10     Subject: Re:College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Have to wonder how this news is being received by Cal & Stanford non-football athletes who often play more than once a week during their respective sport's season. Baseball will be unbearable. Too many games & too much travel. Beach volleyball ?


They are thrilled. Stanford in particular. They came to Stanford because they are high level students and great athletes. They do not want to be in an inferior conference no matter what. Baseball in particular will love being in the ACC.


Disagree.

Travel is already exhausting for ACC baseball players due to the number and frequency of games. Tough to be a student while playing baseball in the ACC.

Within the past year, I read that baseball is the most expensive collegiate sport regarding travel costs. Will be incredibly expensive for Stanford & Cal baseball to compete in the ACC. I cannot imagine how Stanford & Cal baseball players will cope with the academic side of being a student-athlete.
Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 04:04     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:The Big only needs to add Colorado and Arizona for all its states to touch


This will not happen anytime during the next decade or two.

The Big 10 wants Notre Dame, UNC-Chapel Hill, and would love to attract Texas.
Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 03:52     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Conference of misfit toys. 3 flagships, 7 non flagship publics and 7 privates.

Totally random with zero in common philosophy or geography.


The institutions are in a haphazard incoherent mess of leftovers. They must be shocked.


Correct.

https://usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/09/01/acc-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-ponzi-scheme-college-sports/70739725007/

The USA Today article cited above tells it like it is.
Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 01:18     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Did you say sign you up for SMU Wake Forest in primetime?
Anonymous
Post 09/02/2023 01:10     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
’m not sure what your point is? SMU alumni are excited to watch SMU, as well as the fans of the team they’re playing. That is the most you can say about the majority of teams in most of the time, and I would include FSU in that group in recent years. I think it’s still 2014 in the minds of FSU boosters, but the rest of the world has moved on. In the ACC, Clemson is the only “must watch” team, and their star seems to fading a bit.

Besides, SMU was a “must watch” team pre death penalty, and now they have a chance to get there again. We’ll see. Not to mention that there is value to the ACC teams to playing in the heart of the best football recruiting grounds in the US.



I played for Texas, so yes. I am biased. I grew up in Dallas watching the "Pony Express". They were cheaters and deserved the death penalty. I am sure that SMU alumni want to watch their team on TV.

My point is that I don't want to watch SMU play any school in the ACC. It's just lame TV. If Bama is playing LSU, Texas is plating Oklahoma, Georgia is playing Clemson what game would I watch? SMU vs whatever?
Anonymous
Post 09/01/2023 22:41     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
The Big only needs to add Colorado and Arizona for all its states to touch
Anonymous
Post 09/01/2023 22:39     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Conference of misfit toys. 3 flagships, 7 non flagship publics and 7 privates.

Totally random with zero in common philosophy or geography.


The institutions are in a haphazard incoherent mess of leftovers. They must be shocked.


This makes me think none of you have looked at the new B1G or Big 12 maps. The new ACC is no more incoherent geographically than the new B1G and much more coherent academically than the Big 12.


The B1G is generally state flagships and Northwestern. All are part of the AAU (or in the case of Nebraska, was when it was admitted)

You were saying?


I was saying exactly what I said. The B1G is “mostly” flagships (except for Northwestern), but it is, if anything less geographically coherent than the new ACC. The Big 12 is a little bit more geographically coherent, but less academically coherent. I’d argue that most of the ACC — GaT, UVA, VT, UNC, BC, Duke, Wake, Miami, Notre Dame, etc have more in common with Stanford, Cal & SMU (irrespective of the public/private distinction) than Kansas, Baylor, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU, OSU, TCU, Texas Tech, WVU, etc do with each other.

FSU sees itself as an SEC school, but I’m not sure anyone else sees it that way. From what I hear from friends in the college athletics world, Clemson is fine with hanging out with the level of academic schools in the ACC (and not having to get their heads bashed in by UGA, Bama, LSU etc in the regular season every year). I think they’ll keep their options open from a $$ standpoint (someone’s gotta pay Dabo’s big contract), but they have done fine for a football perspective in the current situation.

TL/DR — not one of the new “Power 4” conferences is geographically and academically coherent.
Anonymous
Post 09/01/2023 22:21     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This move will strengthen the GOR. The agreement is what the agreement is and the law is what the law is but the addition of three new teams signing up will push any equities away from programs leaving unless they give notice now. And they cannot. There has been some reporting that USC opposes Clemson coming into the SEC ad they will do all they can to veto that.


Texas entering over Texas A&M's objection is the only time the SEC has added a second school in a state. I think USC will have more of a voice than TAMU.


Clemson, as successful as its football program has been, is not Texas. Texas, and the merger of the Longhorn network, was just too rich to not take (especially with the savings for ESPN) and Oklahoma came along for the ride. The SEC network will be using the Longhorn network facilities. Florida and USC have a real shot at keeping FSU and Clemson out of the SEC, even if they were free, which they’re not.

Not sure why FSU seems so certain they’d be welcomed into a “better” conference with a richer deal. People act like the PAC got a bad deal because it was an unattractive conference, but it was really just bad timing. Rumors are that Disney is trying to sell ESPN, and with cable revenue dying, I don’t think the SEC or B1G or Big12 would get the deals they have if they were renegotiated today. The numbers on what ESPN would have to charge for streaming to make up for lost cable revenue are ridiculous. FSU is just going to have to face thst they weren’t in a position to move and missed the boat.


Texas (as the number one revenue producer in the NCAA) was to much to pass up for the SEC TV revenue rights, no matter what Texas A&Ms objection was. With OU jumping ship as well, it was a solid decision. I'm not sure the additions to the ACC do much.

Are you excited to watch SMU vs "anyone" on a given weekend?


I’m not sure what your point is? SMU alumni are excited to watch SMU, as well as the fans of the team they’re playing. That is the most you can say about the majority of teams in most of the time, and I would include FSU in that group in recent years. I think it’s still 2014 in the minds of FSU boosters, but the rest of the world has moved on. In the ACC, Clemson is the only “must watch” team, and their star seems to fading a bit.

Besides, SMU was a “must watch” team pre death penalty, and now they have a chance to get there again. We’ll see. Not to mention that there is value to the ACC teams to playing in the heart of the best football recruiting grounds in the US.
Anonymous
Post 09/01/2023 22:17     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Conference of misfit toys. 3 flagships, 7 non flagship publics and 7 privates.

Totally random with zero in common philosophy or geography.


The institutions are in a haphazard incoherent mess of leftovers. They must be shocked.


This makes me think none of you have looked at the new B1G or Big 12 maps. The new ACC is no more incoherent geographically than the new B1G and much more coherent academically than the Big 12.


The B1G is generally state flagships and Northwestern. All are part of the AAU (or in the case of Nebraska, was when it was admitted)

You were saying?
Anonymous
Post 09/01/2023 22:08     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This move will strengthen the GOR. The agreement is what the agreement is and the law is what the law is but the addition of three new teams signing up will push any equities away from programs leaving unless they give notice now. And they cannot. There has been some reporting that USC opposes Clemson coming into the SEC ad they will do all they can to veto that.


Texas entering over Texas A&M's objection is the only time the SEC has added a second school in a state. I think USC will have more of a voice than TAMU.


Clemson, as successful as its football program has been, is not Texas. Texas, and the merger of the Longhorn network, was just too rich to not take (especially with the savings for ESPN) and Oklahoma came along for the ride. The SEC network will be using the Longhorn network facilities. Florida and USC have a real shot at keeping FSU and Clemson out of the SEC, even if they were free, which they’re not.

Not sure why FSU seems so certain they’d be welcomed into a “better” conference with a richer deal. People act like the PAC got a bad deal because it was an unattractive conference, but it was really just bad timing. Rumors are that Disney is trying to sell ESPN, and with cable revenue dying, I don’t think the SEC or B1G or Big12 would get the deals they have if they were renegotiated today. The numbers on what ESPN would have to charge for streaming to make up for lost cable revenue are ridiculous. FSU is just going to have to face thst they weren’t in a position to move and missed the boat.


Texas (as the number one revenue producer in the NCAA) was to much to pass up for the SEC TV revenue rights, no matter what Texas A&Ms objection was. With OU jumping ship as well, it was a solid decision. I'm not sure the additions to the ACC do much.

Are you excited to watch SMU vs "anyone" on a given weekend?
Anonymous
Post 09/01/2023 22:05     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Conference of misfit toys. 3 flagships, 7 non flagship publics and 7 privates.

Totally random with zero in common philosophy or geography.


The institutions are in a haphazard incoherent mess of leftovers. They must be shocked.


This makes me think none of you have looked at the new B1G or Big 12 maps. The new ACC is no more incoherent geographically than the new B1G and much more coherent academically than the Big 12.


It is more geographically incoherent than the B1G. The B1G has the whole west coast ..Midwest and Mid Atlantic. Granted .. I think it should add Colorado and Arizona so all states are connected.


Uh, no.

Anonymous
Post 09/01/2023 18:17     Subject: College Football--Big Ten Expansion
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Conference of misfit toys. 3 flagships, 7 non flagship publics and 7 privates.

Totally random with zero in common philosophy or geography.


The institutions are in a haphazard incoherent mess of leftovers. They must be shocked.


This makes me think none of you have looked at the new B1G or Big 12 maps. The new ACC is no more incoherent geographically than the new B1G and much more coherent academically than the Big 12.


It is more geographically incoherent than the B1G. The B1G has the whole west coast ..Midwest and Mid Atlantic. Granted .. I think it should add Colorado and Arizona so all states are connected.