I am getting a little leery of the Jim Williams July 4th weekend tweet marathon. His sources are definitely pro PAC12 and none of this reporting has been corroborated by other reporters. Everyone knows Canzano is compromised so maybe they’re giving Jim all the scoops to pick up the mantle.

(07-04-2023 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 11:22 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 10:13 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 07:41 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If the SEC wants anyone from the Pac 12, I'd say they can have them. It takes up spots that could go to ACC schools and opens up spots for the Big Ten to scoop up ACC schools.

How big can the SEC and Big Ten get? I've heard 24, that's asking a lot. 16 is easily justified when the two extra members are Texas/Oklahoma or USC/UCLA. I think either conference going to 18 or 20 and getting an appropriate bump in revenue is going to be tough now. Even if you think it's 24, then there's 8 spots remaining for the two conferences. Let the SEC waste two spots on Washington and Oregon and have two fewer ones for North Carolina and Florida State then.

Very interesting, schmolik!! I had almost forgotten about that side of the equation. And here's something else to think about also: the B1G might actually be going after 24 teams, but with some of those teams being SEC teams!! The plot thickens!!

We joke about this a lot, but the top 5 targets for the B1G are SEC teams, and vice versa.

Hooey! The brand value of the tags SEC and Big 10 mean that unless they are paid as Forrest Gump would say, "Gozillions" they aren't going anywhere. Too much identity and culture are tied up in a very successful way with their associations. It would be fan following suicide to make those moves to each's most hated rival conference. They all make more stoking the rivalry than by conceding to it.

This is why everyone else is in play, and they are not. If a super league forms and the networks are willing to pay the top brands of both 150 million a year to be in it, then we can talk about a unified Super League. In that world you can say Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State in the same breath with Alabama, Texas, and Georgia. and of course others. But when that happens both the SEC and Big 10 will be dead. One or the other might form a nucleus but the conference name will be dead. You can't sell Michigan as SEC and you can't sell Alabama as Big 10. You can sell "Super League".

What I was referring to was the B1G going to 20, to start with, pause, then go to super league size, with at least 4 from the SEC, if not 5 or 6. It's not that I want that (and I don't) but I can see the B1G doing that to capture their diaspora. "Oh, the places you'll go." The state of Georgia has a lot of B1G alumni from what I have heard. And I have been seeing quite a few t-shirts as well as a few license plates where I live.

(07-04-2023 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 03:10 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  What is the end game here? What's to say that in X years the best of the SEC, ACC and the B1G decide to form a new conference? I get tradition and culture. Would fans/networks/sponsors rather see Michigan/Alabama, Clemson/Ohio St., Texas/USC then any of those schools v. Indiana, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, BC, Wake or Miss St? Where does it end?

The best of the ACC? They'd be lucky to get 2 into a 16 team Super Conference, and they might get 0.

Are you suggesting that Tanya Tucker sing Delta Dawn to Clemson and Florida State?

LOL I edited in my list of schools above. Basically, the top 20 would be 8 from the B1G, at least 8 from the SEC, then a couple of FSU/Clemson/UW/UO. If any ACC teams got in, which I think is possible though perhaps not probable, they'd certainly be at the very bottom of the top 16.

Hmm? Top 32?
PAC 12: Washington, maybe Oregon?
ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Miami
Big 10: Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Southern California
SEC: Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Indy: Notre Dame
I count 21 with a pulse.

UNC, Pitt, NC St., VT
Michigan St., Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA
Ole Miss, Kentucky, S.Carolina

There's 32

You could replace VT w/ Mizzou or a few others.

(07-04-2023 05:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I am getting a little leery of the Jim Williams July 4th weekend tweet marathon. His sources are definitely pro PAC12 and none of this reporting has been corroborated by other reporters. Everyone knows Canzano is compromised so maybe they’re giving Jim all the scoops to pick up the mantle.

Agree, he seems to be looking for clicks too.

(07-04-2023 05:29 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The best of the ACC? They'd be lucky to get 2 into a 16 team Super Conference, and they might get 0.

Are you suggesting that Tanya Tucker sing Delta Dawn to Clemson and Florida State?

LOL I edited in my list of schools above. Basically, the top 20 would be 8 from the B1G, at least 8 from the SEC, then a couple of FSU/Clemson/UW/UO. If any ACC teams got in, which I think is possible though perhaps not probable, they'd certainly be at the very bottom of the top 16.

Hmm? Top 32?
PAC 12: Washington, maybe Oregon?
ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Miami
Big 10: Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Southern California
SEC: Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Indy: Notre Dame
I count 21 with a pulse.

UNC, Pitt, NC St., VT
Michigan St., Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA
Ole Miss, Kentucky, S.Carolina

There's 32

You could replace VT w/ Mizzou or a few others.

And those schools have played for or won a national championship in football when? 1960 or 1 for Ole Miss, 1990 for unlisted Georgia Tech, Pitt in late 70's or early 80's, maybe Iowa, the rest when? There is your second tier of the upper echelon.

My point was the true top is much smaller than people think. And those you list aren't enough to maintain status quo for the top. Thats why 48 is much more likely. You would have much better overall football, but with a better bell curve on the wins and losses. In fact to have any semblance of what we have now you had better make it a top 60. Which by the way I consider the most likely with Notre Dame and B.Y.U. as independents, so 62.

The Big 10 at 20 is profitable. The SEC at 20 is profitable, A composite conference at 20 is profitable. Plus 2. Now you'll have some 10-2 maybe 11-1 champions. And by closing the upper tier, more talent is concentrated in that tier so the competition to the 2nd string is pretty sound.

(07-04-2023 08:17 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Is Stanford as big of a brand as BYU?
....

Yes.

(07-04-2023 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 05:29 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Are you suggesting that Tanya Tucker sing Delta Dawn to Clemson and Florida State?

LOL I edited in my list of schools above. Basically, the top 20 would be 8 from the B1G, at least 8 from the SEC, then a couple of FSU/Clemson/UW/UO. If any ACC teams got in, which I think is possible though perhaps not probable, they'd certainly be at the very bottom of the top 16.

Hmm? Top 32?
PAC 12: Washington, maybe Oregon?
ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Miami
Big 10: Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Southern California
SEC: Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Indy: Notre Dame
I count 21 with a pulse.

UNC, Pitt, NC St., VT
Michigan St., Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA
Ole Miss, Kentucky, S.Carolina

There's 32

You could replace VT w/ Mizzou or a few others.

And those schools have played for or won a national championship in football when? 1960 or 1 for Ole Miss, 1990 for unlisted Georgia Tech, Pitt in late 70's or early 80's, maybe Iowa, the rest when? There is your second tier of the upper echelon.

My point was the true top is much smaller than people think. And those you list aren't enough to maintain status quo for the top. Thats why 48 is much more likely. You would have much better overall football, but with a better bell curve on the wins and losses. In fact to have any semblance of what we have now you had better make it a top 60. Which by the way I consider the most likely with Notre Dame and B.Y.U. as independents, so 62.

The Big 10 at 20 is profitable. The SEC at 20 is profitable, A composite conference at 20 is profitable. Plus 2. Now you'll have some 10-2 maybe 11-1 champions. And by closing the upper tier, more talent is concentrated in that tier so the competition to the 2nd string is pretty sound.

I'm just trying to get you to 32, yeah GT won it in 1990 but I'm talking about now. Syracuse was a power back in the 80s-early 90s too. I mean would some of the VTs of the world be subbed out for Duke, Kansas, Arizona who's bball may overall make them more worth a top 32?

I mean Nebraska, Miami, haven't done anything in 20 yrs. Arkansas, you could take those schools out and be at 18

(07-04-2023 02:54 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 11:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 06:22 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t get why the PAC 10 continues this charade that GK is going to put together a tv deal with great money and exposure. They aren’t going to get Big 12 money. They may get a deal that looks like it’s almost Big 12 money but once production costs are deducted, the real value is far less. The simple solution is this:

The Big 10 reaches out to the schools they are interested in with their offer (likely a phased in plan, that eventually builds up to full shares).

Said schools then inform the 4Cs schools of said offer.

4Cs approach the Big 12 and announce their move.

2 days later, the Big 10 announces their expansion.

I agree with both you and Schmolik on this one. But for slightly different reasons.

The Big 10 will take what they want from the PAC 12 because the SEC isn't really interested in them at all. And why not? Because SEC fans aren't interested in them. The Networks might think they can sell the SEC fans on some PAC schools to expand the time zone window, but SEC fans won't buy it and it would piss them off. Sankey knows this. Even ESPN knows this. If ESPN wants those late night windows they'll have to get them through the Big 12 or pay the PAC for them.

I have suggested Colorado for the SEC, but only because they used to be Big 8 and then Big 12. If the SEC decided to take Kansas, Colorado makes sense as the #2. They fit with Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas and have history and fan interest in those games and with Texas recruiting ties re-established by playing Texas and A&M maybe their return to their former form, which was never truly great but was competitive.

This is why the Big 10 will never succeed in the Deep South. Outside of Miami which is more Northeastern culturally, there is no fan interest no matter how many snowbirds they think they attract. The other exception is Virginia which is now Beltway and not Southern, and though not Northern Midwestern either is more Northern than Southern.

In spite of the Risk board mentality which even the bloggers and beat writers now plug for interest, college sports is regional and still has traditions.

I fully expect the Big 10 to take more PAC schools simply to jazz up business on the West Coast and because culturally it works. I expect Deep South ACC schools to continue to hope for the SEC for the same reasons.

Where the SEC was smart was in realizing early that the mentality and culture of the Southwest, while not Southeastern, was similar enough that the two together made sense, as well as cents. The Big 12 coming prior to the major defections to the SEC also really helped. As the Big 8 blended with the old SWC members they remained close enough geographically, and got acclimated enough culturally for the Old Big 8 schools to begin to have enough of a similar culture to acclimate better toward the SEC. Passion wise for the sport they fit. The lack of significate markets among them also kept the Big 10 at bay early when the Big 10 culture would have been the preferred choice. Kansas in the SEC is now not unthinkable, and Colorado connected to Texas instead of California is not unthinkable either. That still doesn't mean the SEC will add Colorado, just that if it did not expand out of the ACC, if ESPN managed to keep the ACC together to become the #3 conference in a 3 conference upper tier, Colorado and Kansas would be appealing market wise and to add value to the winter schedule.

I do think that cultural sanity will be maintained in future additions, whether from the ACC or PAC 12. I also think 20 may be maxing it out, unless the Big 10 and SEC are simply paid to add the niche markets the networks want and the networks only want 2 conferences in the end.

Obviously, the massive prize is Notre Dame and the likelihood is that they join neither. They could easily be accommodated as an independent with another school like B.Y.U. attached in the same way.

The SEC's targets which could fit outside of those in the ACC would be Kansas and Colorado with all of Colorado's value being tied up in marketing a new time zone. Colorado playing any SEC school late would be of interest in the Central Time Zone. The thing which makes it improbable is I don't see SEC fans buying into playing Arizona schools and Colorado by itself could only provide 4 or 5 such games.

IMO, this is the hidden underbelly of the PAC 12 contract problem. The Big 10 might be able to justify 3 more PAC schools. Washington the most valuable, Oregon the most visible, Stanford a high-profile school with incredible academics are the three. Without Notre Dame maybe Cal becomes the evener for scheduling with the moves, maybe. Outside of the longshot that the SEC could entertain adding Colorado, there is no interest in PAC 12 schools from the SEC. As fun as it is to contemplate a national conference the high dollar value of the SEC is pinned to extreme regionalism, and a fervor for those games which sells nationally.

That fervor says that Florida State and Clemson fit. That North Carolina would be welcomed for the market and to create must see basketball games with Kentucky.
Duke was great under coach K, and maybe will remain so, but Carolina has always been great. Kansas fits right there as well. I would not be surprised if the SEC decided to double dip national brands. Two for football and two for hoops and call it a day. I can see a Virginia school in the SEC for markets should Vanderbilt decide to be the SEC's first all but Football member and Duke decided to join them in that capacity. Perhaps 20 full and two partial is the way the SEC winds up. We'll see.

24 for either the SEC or Big 10 will only happen, IMO, if the networks underwrite them.

I think the board is anticipating the correct resolution of the PAC 12. Eventually, and unless the contract situation magically improves, some of them are headed to the Big 12 where both FOX and ESPN can have just enough late night programming to meet their needs, and the Big 10 will move on to either 18 or 20 with the ones it really wants.

I just don't see the networks paying for 8 more schools to each the Big 10 and SEC at P2 rates. It simply doesn't work in any traditional sense.

It wouldn't be traditional, it would be NFL on Saturdays.

But with nothing close to the ratings. College ball writ small is a financial loser. The actual people in charge know this.

(07-03-2023 11:32 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  .
https://basicbluesnation.com/big-ten-wai...expansion/
.
maybe this has already been posted, sorry if so, but I saw this 2 days ago and was wondering why this wasn't already...
.

An uncharacteristically passive stance coming from the B1G Ten, but plausible. It could help the conference avoid some liability issues.

The rest of the article is conjecture. The B1G messed up its 'contiguous map' philosophy so badly with that LA move that the conference could expand in any direction now and one move would be as awkward as any other.

Right on cue, of course, the writer starts gushing about Notre Dame. If Notre Dame is really bouncing around in any B1G heads, those heads need to get it out. The B1G Ten needs to expand now into the conference it has been planning to become, whatever that is. With schools that want to join.

(07-04-2023 08:05 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-03-2023 11:32 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  .
https://basicbluesnation.com/big-ten-wai...expansion/
.
maybe this has already been posted, sorry if so, but I saw this 2 days ago and was wondering why this wasn't already...
.

An uncharacteristically passive stance coming from the B1G Ten, but plausible. It could help the conference avoid some liability issues.

The rest of the article is conjecture. The B1G messed up its 'contiguous map' philosophy so badly with that LA move that the conference could expand in any direction now and one move would be as awkward as any other.

Right on cue, of course, the writer starts gushing about Notre Dame. If Notre Dame is really bouncing around in any B1G heads, those heads need to get it out. The B1G Ten needs to expand now into the conference it has been planning to become, whatever that is. With schools that want to join.

They need to finish off with the Mommas and the Poppas and their, "California Dreaming". It warms the Big 10 heart on a "such a Winter's day". And now they are in L.A. and not just Piscataway!

(07-04-2023 05:29 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The best of the ACC? They'd be lucky to get 2 into a 16 team Super Conference, and they might get 0.

Are you suggesting that Tanya Tucker sing Delta Dawn to Clemson and Florida State?

LOL I edited in my list of schools above. Basically, the top 20 would be 8 from the B1G, at least 8 from the SEC, then a couple of FSU/Clemson/UW/UO. If any ACC teams got in, which I think is possible though perhaps not probable, they'd certainly be at the very bottom of the top 16.

Hmm? Top 32?
PAC 12: Washington, maybe Oregon?
ACC: Clemson, Florida State, Miami
Big 10: Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Southern California
SEC: Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Indy: Notre Dame
I count 21 with a pulse.

UNC, Pitt, NC St., VT
Michigan St., Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA
Ole Miss, Kentucky, S.Carolina

There's 32

You could replace VT w/ Mizzou or a few others.

Pitt is rarely mentioned in threads like this. NC State is mentioned more often, though for the life of me I can't see why the 2nd or 3rd school in NC is better than the 3rd-5th schools in Texas, 2nd in Oklahoma, Kansas, or Ohio, or top in WV. They're comparable to those others, sure, but not clearly superior in anything htat matters: attendance, tv ratings, on field performance, athletic spending, Brand. Literally nothing sets NC St apart from a big chunk of middle class P5 schools from the ACC, big 12 and Pac.

If they get AAU or go start winning a bunch of CFP games and/or Conference Titles, then that would be something that would set them apart. Unless and until that happens, they're not on anybody's list.

(07-04-2023 08:35 AM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If the B1G added Oregon, Washington, and Colorado would that be enough to get ND to join a new 20 team B1G? They could have four pods of five teams with ND playing in the West Pod along with USC, UCLA, UO, and UW. Each school would play all four teams in their pod and then rotate five games from the other pods. This would still give ND three OOC games so they could play Navy and whatever teams in the South they'd like to play.

That would keep ND's yearly rivalry with the Trojans going and maintain the "national" schedule they like to play. If the B1G could get the TV deal to $1.2 to $1.3B it would put them right inline with what ND is looking to get now.

West Pod- USC, UCLA, Oregon, Wash, ND
Plains Pod- Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minn, Wisc
Central Pod- Illinois, NW, Indiana, Purdue, MSU
East Pod- Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland

A Big Ten 4 game scheduling agreement facilitated by NBC with an independent ND accomplishes a lot of this.

ND keeps its other sports in the ACC, stays independent and then pays nothing in exit fees and GOR buyouts.

Simple.

We may see the B1G absorb 4 more PAC schools soon, then park.

If that happens, the league would probably look east for the remainder. If ESPN and the SEC are aggressive, though, the B1G may still take another school or two from today's PAC to reach 24.

Something like this could be what the Colorado chancellor has in mind when he says he supports a 5-year deal. The B1G likely doesn't invite his school now, but in 5 years Colorado could be a winner just as everyone is getting a sense of how the ACC schools are breaking.

(07-04-2023 09:37 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 09:17 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 07:43 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  From Miami (OH)’s article link:

“While teams like Oregon, Washington, or Utah may add more to the profile of the Big Ten, logistically, it would make more sense for Penn State if the conference added more teams from the Mid-Atlantic. But as I’ve speculated before, stripping the cupboard of the PAC 12 could make the Big Ten more enticing for Notre Dame. With rivals like Michigan, Michigan State, and USC as current or soon-to-be Big Ten members, adding programs like Stanford would essentially create a built-in conference schedule for the Irish.”

If the BIG is of the mindset that adding a slew of more PAC12 schools will entice Notre Dame to also join; that is certainly a high risk gamble. If adding Notre Dame is the prime, or major, objective, the BIG better get it contracted first with Notre Dame. Notre Dame may still prefer to hang with the ACC and technically remain fb independent. There’s nothing stopping Notre Dame from flirting with the SEC either.

The only other remaining Pac 12 school that Notre Dame plays on a regular basis is Stanford. How would adding any other Pac 12 schools help entice Notre Dame? If the Big Ten wanted to get Notre Dame to join, adding schools like Boston College, Pittsburgh, and Miami would probably be better than schools like Washington and Oregon.

The thing you have to remember is that ND doesn’t value all the schools they play equally. The modern ND-Stanford series only dates until 1988. ND plays this series because it fits their agenda. They don’t care all that deeply about the Cardinal and will drop them in a heartbeat. (And it’s starting to look that way because the series isn’t renewed past 2024). ND plays Stanford because:

CA recruiting
Exposure with Bay Area alumni
They want to be associated with a prestigious private school

BC and Pitt are similar “rivals”. ND doesn’t really think of them as equals.

ND doesn't really care all that deeply about most of the schools it plays.

The only real exceptions are Southern Cal and Navy (for different reasons).

ND is pretty cold blooded in its desire to remain independent.

It dumped annual foes Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue in a heartbeat to remain independent.

If the ACC throught that FSU, Pitt, Miami and BC would entice ND football to join it, well, it was wrong.

Most schools on the schedule are simply opponents to fill a schedule and/or fit an agenda/goal (location, venue, recruiting, etc..)

Adding schools to entice ND to join a conference is pyrite.

(07-04-2023 05:37 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 05:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I am getting a little leery of the Jim Williams July 4th weekend tweet marathon. His sources are definitely pro PAC12 and none of this reporting has been corroborated by other reporters. Everyone knows Canzano is compromised so maybe they’re giving Jim all the scoops to pick up the mantle.

Agree, he seems to be looking for clicks too.

And this latest tweet about waiting for Miami and UNC is just rubbish and showed the source’s true colors. Shame on Jim for entertaining that though. Obviously, ND and Miami will be prime targets for the B1G along with UNC/FSU. But it’s just not even worth discussing until this media deal “framework is finalized by media day”

(07-04-2023 05:54 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 08:17 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Is Stanford as big of a brand as BYU?
....

Yes.

They are right now, they've been a bunch of major bowls recently. However, if they continue to fight the NIL and graduate transfer rulings, they'll be an afterthought forever or just drop to FCS eventually.

(07-04-2023 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2023 08:05 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-03-2023 11:32 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  .
https://basicbluesnation.com/big-ten-wai...expansion/
.
maybe this has already been posted, sorry if so, but I saw this 2 days ago and was wondering why this wasn't already...
.

An uncharacteristically passive stance coming from the B1G Ten, but plausible. It could help the conference avoid some liability issues.

The rest of the article is conjecture. The B1G messed up its 'contiguous map' philosophy so badly with that LA move that the conference could expand in any direction now and one move would be as awkward as any other.

Right on cue, of course, the writer starts gushing about Notre Dame. If Notre Dame is really bouncing around in any B1G heads, those heads need to get it out. The B1G Ten needs to expand now into the conference it has been planning to become, whatever that is. With schools that want to join.

They need to finish off with the Mommas and the Poppas and their, "California Dreaming". It warms the Big 10 heart on a "such a Winter's day". And now they are in L.A. and not just Piscataway!

And just like Michigan in November night games, they'd be safe and warm if they was in LA.

At least at UMich they prefer to poke south. Implied, but not stated in this view, is the SEC will snag Florida State and Clemson.

IMO B1G people are way overconfident in their ability to get North Carolina, just as they were with Texas. Tarheels from faculty to students to alumni look South, see themselves aligned with the SEC far more than anything looking north. Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State and Ohio State are hardly schools anyone in North Carolina feels much affinity for. It's a logical target, but probably a bridge too far.

Washington and Oregon could be in their laps in a few weeks. The Pac-12 might well collapse when the deal is presented. Quite the dilemma.

(07-04-2023 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

At least at UMich they prefer to poke south. Implied, but not stated in this view, is the SEC will snag Florida State and Clemson.

IMO B1G people are way overconfident in their ability to get North Carolina, just as they were with Texas. Tarheels from faculty to students to alumni look South, see themselves aligned with the SEC far more than anything looking north. Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State and Ohio State are hardly schools anyone in North Carolina feels much affinity for. It's a logical target, but probably a bridge too far.

Washington and Oregon could be in their laps in a few weeks. The Pac-12 might well collapse when the deal is presented. Quite the dilemma.

We've not discussed it much on this board since it was first mentioned by Warren and alluded to by others, but what if the number is 22? California, Duke, Oregon, Stanford, Virginia and Washington for the Big 10. Clemson, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, N.C. State and Virginia Tech for the SEC. Both the SEC and Big 10 are now division-less.

In that world the Big 12 could accommodate the six from the remaining PAC 12 and the six from the remaining ACC and move to 24. Add Notre Dame and you have the current 69 only in 3 with two less sets of conference overhead coming out of their money and in all 3 conferences sharing the costs with more schools.

It never works out exactly as we think, but we'll see.

If the PAC goes poof and vanishes, I don't expect the ACC to last very long either. Pressure for resolution will be too great.

(07-04-2023 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

At least at UMich they prefer to poke south. Implied, but not stated in this view, is the SEC will snag Florida State and Clemson.

IMO B1G people are way overconfident in their ability to get North Carolina, just as they were with Texas. Tarheels from faculty to students to alumni look South, see themselves aligned with the SEC far more than anything looking north. Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State and Ohio State are hardly schools anyone in North Carolina feels much affinity for. It's a logical target, but probably a bridge too far.

Washington and Oregon could be in their laps in a few weeks. The Pac-12 might well collapse when the deal is presented. Quite the dilemma.

From the minute Johnny Football started doing his thing to A&M's continued success in fundraising, on the gridiron, on the recruiting trail, to the 13 Titles in 17 years by the SEC, to OU's clear preference for the SEC, Texas to the SEC became nearly inevitable. The SEC provides a much better shot at long term football success, and it's a much better fit geographically for Texas. The closest B1G city, Chicago, is as far away from Austin as the most distant SEC city (Columbia, SC), and the closest SEC city...well, I've ridden my bike farther than that in 1 day.

UNC is VERY different. I have them lean SEC, but they don't care about football very much, certainly not like Texas does. There's a very real chance that they'll choose the B1G. I agree that there are plenty of reasons to go SEC, but those reasons aren't as strong for UNC as are Texas' reasons, and the geography is very nearly a wash for them.