(07-17-2022 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, the value that a conference wants to bank on is what are the ratings when a school isn't in the top 10, because you can't count on that. You bring in a school because they have been hot for a few years, then you are stuck with them when they are not.

I know if I was starting a conference, I'd much rather have major flagships like Arizona and Cal than the nB12 schools you mention.

Starting what conference? An academic one that is not looking to fund an athletic departments?

I would say it is fair to say you can't count on Cal being a top-10 team. Is that a positive?

So it is a weighted assessment of what they could pull* likelihood they do. And Cal is not good in either case. Even in a top-10 year, I'd have concern over a BIG CA watching Cal in a middle class conference.

At some level, the ability to be good is why top football brands (not favorite name schools) are top football brands. I don't think you can easily decouple that. There are other factors, like natural captive audience, but also having a constituency that still cares about football.

Imo the term flagship is egregiously overused and overvalued, more a message board fan thing. At best it is something a BIG could afford to factor in, at worst nothing more than fan delusion thinking Arizona has extra value. No offense to AZ, but it is not a destination school, no more than any warm climate school draws right now. It is like when fans of schools start arguing which college town is better. They're both college towns. Only those that haven't left their bubble think there is a real difference. Academics leading these decisions have left the bubble.

Well, IIRC, last year, Cal's athletic budget was about $110 million. That's a lot of money. I think they even soak their students with $25m in fees despite cashing a P5 paycheck. That's an over-commitment to athletics, IMO. I think they sponsor 30 sports.

I'm not sure the terms flagship is overused. The SEC and B1G, the two most valuable conferences, are stuffed with flagships. That's basically what they are interested in having - more than AAU or academics or anything else, they like flagships. All their schools are flagships, or else elite privates. Basically, unless you are a flagship, an elite private, or functionally a flagship equivalent (e.g., UCLA, Texas AM), they aren't interested.

IMO that is not a coincidence, it is because flagships dominate states and have national visibility. Now, that doesn't apply to "flagships" of tiny states. Nobody is looking to add Maine or South Dakota or Rhode Island. But Arizona and Cal and Colorado or not such states.

So to me, it is almost axiomatic that they are more valuable than the nB12 schools, none of which are flagships or elite privates (by which I mean truly elite, like Notre Dame and USC, not Baylor/SMU level), save for Kansas.

We'll just have to see.

Not all flagships dominate states. See Buffalo and Stony Brook. See UMass. See Cal-Berkleley. The flagships of the midwest and south grab T-shirt fans in a way those in the northeast and west do not. Its just a different culture. A big % if not most of the MAC and Sun Belt schools fans are fans of Enormous State U. first and their own school second. I had a friend who helped promoting the FBS move at La. Tech and told me how disgusted she was when half the fans left at halftime to go watch the LSU game on TV.

Well, I did say that not all flagships were valuable - e.g., South Dakota, Maine, and Rhode Island were specifically mentioned. I think UMass is the same kind of thing, and Buffalo and Stony Brook, I'm not even sure most outside of New York is aware of their existence much less that they are flagships (heck to me, two flagships means there is no flagship), so the same category. Unlike most flagships, which have had that status for decades or even more than a century, I believe those schools were designated such just earlier this year, which IMO gives them no accumulated status as such.

IMO Cal, with its longstanding P5 membership, $100m budget, etc. is clearly not that kind of "flagship", it is in the same zone as the SEC, B1G and PAC flagships, which it is one of. Of course, because California is such a massive state, it doesn't dominate the state like say Arkansas dominates Arkansas, but it has the size and reach of a flagship. Probably why it has always been in a "power" conference and none of those schools you mention has ever been.

My overall point was just that I do not believe the "flagship" term is much overused. The flagship concept is important. They dominate the most valuable conferences. And even in the ACC, B12 and PAC, just about all of the most valuable schools, the ones most likely to be desired by the SEC and B1G, I would say are flagships - North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Utah. Clemson is an exception. And Notre Dame and Miami are elite privates who qualify too. FSU too, but they are kind of like Texas AM, a second-banana in a massive state, such that their profile would be "flagship" in most smaller states.

To me, the flagship status is very telling. And it explains why the nB12 has the "security of the unwanted" - its schools are not likely to be invited by the SEC or B1G because, save for Kansas, no flagships.

Iowa St., Kansas St., Oklahoma St. and because of the massive size of the state, Texas Tech and Houston, aren't a whole lot different than the Purdues, Michigan St.s, Auburns and Mississippi St.s of the Big 10 and SEC.

The Big 10 and SEC do have some schools with the advantage of being both liberal arts flagship and land grant-LSU, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio St., etc.

(07-16-2022 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 10:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 06:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously we differ significantly about this. After reading your post, I agree that ESPN would want a Texas presence in the "3rd P". I would therefore think that Baylor is likely to get included in the "group of 10", as unlike Houston and TCU, it has appeal throughout the state. It is IMO the only school other than Texas and Texas AM in the state that has a "pan-Texas" appeal. Who they replace on my list I do not know.

I do not get the appeal of Cincinnati making a top 10. They were in a G5 league and stuck there until the nB12 needed to expand. Yes, they have had great recent football success, but football success for a school like them is just the quality of their head coach, who can go at any time. It IMO has no institutional roots so I would not bank on that.

Anyway, just MO. I do think the nB12 is the most vulnerable to lose members. To me, most of them simply lack brand-value. When I say I think Cal and Arizona is a better school for inclusion than TCU or Houston, it's because I think Cal and Arizona are state flagships with more national TV appeal than TCU or Houston or UCF or Kansas State, etc. I agree it is about adding value, not popularity, though IMO popularity and value are closely correlated. We just seem to differ on what value means, or else on who has it. IMO, the nB12 schools tend to lack value, in the sense of what I call "brand recognition". Which IMO ultimately attracts TV sets.

Of course, I've been wrong before. We will see.

You may or may not be wrong about who gets left at the alter but you are wrong about national TV appeal. The Pac schools are at the bottom despite their name recognition. No matter how much you believe it, your belief is detached from reality.

TCU, Baylor, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., Iowa St., UCF, Cincinnati, have all spent time in the top 10 in the last decade. Cal hasn't sniffed it since 2004. Not sure when Arizona was last there. And those schools have a time zone handicap.

To me, the value that a conference wants to bank on is what are the ratings when a school isn't in the top 10, because you can't count on that. You bring in a school because they have been hot for a few years, then you are stuck with them when they are not.

I know if I was starting a conference, I'd much rather have major flagships like Arizona and Cal than the nB12 schools you mention.

Starting what conference? An academic one that is not looking to fund an athletic departments?

I would say it is fair to say you can't count on Cal being a top-10 team. Is that a positive?

So it is a weighted assessment of what they could pull* likelihood they do. And Cal is not good in either case. Even in a top-10 year, I'd have concern over a BIG CA watching Cal in a middle class conference.

At some level, the ability to be good is why top football brands (not favorite name schools) are top football brands. I don't think you can easily decouple that. There are other factors, like natural captive audience, but also having a constituency that still cares about football.

Imo the term flagship is egregiously overused and overvalued, more a message board fan thing. At best it is something a BIG could afford to factor in, at worst nothing more than fan delusion thinking Arizona has extra value. No offense to AZ, but it is not a destination school, no more than any warm climate school draws right now. It is like when fans of schools start arguing which college town is better. They're both college towns. Only those that haven't left their bubble think there is a real difference. Academics leading these decisions have left the bubble.

Well, IIRC, last year, Cal's athletic budget was about $110 million. That's a lot of money. I think they even soak their students with $25m in fees despite cashing a P5 paycheck. That's an over-commitment to athletics, IMO. I think they sponsor 30 sports.

I'm not sure the terms flagship is overused. The SEC and B1G, the two most valuable conferences, are stuffed with flagships. That's basically what they are interested in having - more than AAU or academics or anything else, they like flagships. All their schools are flagships, or else elite privates. Basically, unless you are a flagship, an elite private (truly elite - USC, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vandy level, not SMU/Baylor level), or a co-flagship in a massive state (e.g., UCLA, Texas AM), they aren't interested.

IMO that is not a coincidence, it is because flagships dominate states and have national visibility and brand value. Now, that doesn't apply to "flagships" of tiny states. Nobody is looking to add Maine or South Dakota or Rhode Island. But Arizona and Cal and Colorado or not such states.

So to me, it is almost axiomatic that Cal and Arizona are more valuable than almost all the nB12 schools, none of which are flagships or elite privates , save for Kansas.

We'll just have to see.

Cal's budget only ranks them #38. That is behind TCU, Kansas and Baylor.

(07-17-2022 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Starting what conference? An academic one that is not looking to fund an athletic departments?

I would say it is fair to say you can't count on Cal being a top-10 team. Is that a positive?

So it is a weighted assessment of what they could pull* likelihood they do. And Cal is not good in either case. Even in a top-10 year, I'd have concern over a BIG CA watching Cal in a middle class conference.

At some level, the ability to be good is why top football brands (not favorite name schools) are top football brands. I don't think you can easily decouple that. There are other factors, like natural captive audience, but also having a constituency that still cares about football.

Imo the term flagship is egregiously overused and overvalued, more a message board fan thing. At best it is something a BIG could afford to factor in, at worst nothing more than fan delusion thinking Arizona has extra value. No offense to AZ, but it is not a destination school, no more than any warm climate school draws right now. It is like when fans of schools start arguing which college town is better. They're both college towns. Only those that haven't left their bubble think there is a real difference. Academics leading these decisions have left the bubble.

Well, IIRC, last year, Cal's athletic budget was about $110 million. That's a lot of money. I think they even soak their students with $25m in fees despite cashing a P5 paycheck. That's an over-commitment to athletics, IMO. I think they sponsor 30 sports.

I'm not sure the terms flagship is overused. The SEC and B1G, the two most valuable conferences, are stuffed with flagships. That's basically what they are interested in having - more than AAU or academics or anything else, they like flagships. All their schools are flagships, or else elite privates. Basically, unless you are a flagship, an elite private, or functionally a flagship equivalent (e.g., UCLA, Texas AM), they aren't interested.

IMO that is not a coincidence, it is because flagships dominate states and have national visibility. Now, that doesn't apply to "flagships" of tiny states. Nobody is looking to add Maine or South Dakota or Rhode Island. But Arizona and Cal and Colorado or not such states.

So to me, it is almost axiomatic that they are more valuable than the nB12 schools, none of which are flagships or elite privates (by which I mean truly elite, like Notre Dame and USC, not Baylor/SMU level), save for Kansas.

We'll just have to see.

Not all flagships dominate states. See Buffalo and Stony Brook. See UMass. See Cal-Berkleley. The flagships of the midwest and south grab T-shirt fans in a way those in the northeast and west do not. Its just a different culture. A big % if not most of the MAC and Sun Belt schools fans are fans of Enormous State U. first and their own school second. I had a friend who helped promoting the FBS move at La. Tech and told me how disgusted she was when half the fans left at halftime to go watch the LSU game on TV.

Well, I did say that not all flagships were valuable - e.g., South Dakota, Maine, and Rhode Island were specifically mentioned. I think UMass is the same kind of thing, and Buffalo and Stony Brook, I'm not even sure most outside of New York is aware of their existence much less that they are flagships (heck to me, two flagships means there is no flagship), so the same category. Unlike most flagships, which have had that status for decades or even more than a century, I believe those schools were designated such just earlier this year, which IMO gives them no accumulated status as such.

IMO Cal, with its longstanding P5 membership, $100m budget, etc. is clearly not that kind of "flagship", it is in the same zone as the SEC, B1G and PAC flagships, which it is one of. Of course, because California is such a massive state, it doesn't dominate the state like say Arkansas dominates Arkansas, but it has the size and reach of a flagship. Probably why it has always been in a "power" conference and none of those schools you mention has ever been.

My overall point was just that I do not believe the "flagship" term is much overused. The flagship concept is important. They dominate the most valuable conferences. And even in the ACC, B12 and PAC, just about all of the most valuable schools, the ones most likely to be desired by the SEC and B1G, I would say are flagships - North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Utah. Clemson is an exception. And Notre Dame and Miami are elite privates who qualify too. FSU too, but they are kind of like Texas AM, a second-banana in a massive state, such that their profile would be "flagship" in most smaller states.

To me, the flagship status is very telling. And it explains why the nB12 has the "security of the unwanted" - its schools are not likely to be invited by the SEC or B1G because, save for Kansas, no flagships.

Iowa St., Kansas St., Oklahoma St. and because of the massive size of the state, Texas Tech and Houston, aren't a whole lot different than the Purdues, Michigan St.s, Auburns and Mississippi St.s of the Big 10 and SEC.

If you were building the Big Ten or SEC from scratch today, would you invite those schools? I doubt it.

If Texas Tech were....scratch that line of thought. If Texas Tech were anywhere east of a I-35, they'd be Texas A&M

If ESPN wanted to create a P3 and establish stability for 12 years, how about this ACC (All Coast Conference)?

Miami, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia
Clemson, OK State, FSU, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah, Arizona St, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

This conference would have 8 of the Top 25 teams in the 10 year MSR. The SEC would also have 8 and the Big Ten 6. Only OK State and Baylor would have to buy out of their current conference. ESPN could help them with that.

(07-17-2022 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to create a P3 and establish stability for 12 years, how about this ACC (All Coast Conference)?

Miami, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia
Clemson, OK State, FSU, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah, Arizona St, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

This conference would have 8 of the Top 25 teams in the 10 year MSR. The SEC would also have 8 and the Big Ten 6. Only OK State and Baylor would have to buy out of their current conference. ESPN could help them with that.

Cal, CU, and two AZs, is pulling down the ability to close the gap with P2. Which is the whole point- if the gap is not materially narrowed, the conference is not for long.

KU, Cincy, TCU, even Houston (ACCN implications) would push at least a couple of the PAC schools out. Likely AZ and CU.

We laugh at KU, but what does CU have over them? The upside favors KU imo

(07-17-2022 02:12 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to create a P3 and establish stability for 12 years, how about this ACC (All Coast Conference)?

Miami, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia
Clemson, OK State, FSU, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah, Arizona St, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

This conference would have 8 of the Top 25 teams in the 10 year MSR. The SEC would also have 8 and the Big Ten 6. Only OK State and Baylor would have to buy out of their current conference. ESPN could help them with that.

Cal, CU, and two AZs, is pulling down the ability to close the gap with P2. Which is the whole point- if the gap is not materially narrowed, the conference is not for long.

KU, Cincy, TCU, even Houston (ACCN implications) would push at least a couple of the PAC schools out. Likely AZ and CU.

We laugh at KU, but what does CU have over them? The upside favors KU imo

Another thing pulling down the value of this new conference is all 4 NC schools coming from the ACC. NC is a large and growing state, but it isn't Texas, Florida or California. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from TX and CA I don't there is any other instance of a single state having 4 schools in a power conference. There's value in UNC & Duke, perhaps even NC State although their value would probably be higher to a different conference. So I see Wake almost inevitably left behind, which is sad as they have truly done more with less and achieved at a higher level than you'd reasonably expect going back to the Jim Grobe era.

Swapping out Wake for Kansas would add value, IMO. Swapping BC for WVU might as well. And this is one reason ACC dissolution may be utilized rather than the unanimous agreement needed to change the GoR. Even IF a supermajority of 12 is required for dissolution, that means a couple of ACC schools don't have to be placed in order for the others to be freed.

(07-17-2022 02:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 02:12 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to create a P3 and establish stability for 12 years, how about this ACC (All Coast Conference)?

Miami, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia
Clemson, OK State, FSU, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah, Arizona St, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

This conference would have 8 of the Top 25 teams in the 10 year MSR. The SEC would also have 8 and the Big Ten 6. Only OK State and Baylor would have to buy out of their current conference. ESPN could help them with that.

Cal, CU, and two AZs, is pulling down the ability to close the gap with P2. Which is the whole point- if the gap is not materially narrowed, the conference is not for long.

KU, Cincy, TCU, even Houston (ACCN implications) would push at least a couple of the PAC schools out. Likely AZ and CU.

We laugh at KU, but what does CU have over them? The upside favors KU imo

Another thing pulling down the value of this new conference is all 4 NC schools coming from the ACC. NC is a large and growing state, but it isn't Texas, Florida or California. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from TX and CA I don't there is any other instance of a single state having 4 schools in a power conference. There's value in UNC & Duke, perhaps even NC State although their value would probably be higher to a different conference. So I see Wake almost inevitably left behind, which is sad as they have truly done more with less and achieved at a higher level than you'd reasonably expect going back to the Jim Grobe era.

Swapping out Wake for Kansas would add value, IMO. Swapping BC for WVU might as well. And this is one reason ACC dissolution may be utilized rather than the unanimous agreement needed to change the GoR. Even IF a supermajority of 12 is required for dissolution, that means a couple of ACC schools don't have to be placed in order for the others to be freed.

The reason I have all four NC schools in the same conference is because that's where they are already. Just like the other 10 schools in the conference. This is just a scenario that is actually possible right now, something lacking in most scenarios posited on this forum. I'm not trying to imagine the best conference imaginable. Just one that reflects the current reality. Namely, the ACC's makeup is locked in for a long time and the PAC's is that every member is a free agent in two years.

Fourteen ACC plus ten PAC would be 24, but that would exclude the only top 20 football programs outside the ACC or PAC. So I proposed taking them instead of the two weak sisters of the PAC (Wazzou and Oregon State) so we'd have some good competition for the powerful southern wing of the ACC.

I don't believe there is any other way for the ACC to remain the third most powerful FBS conference except to add the west coast to ESPN's stable before somebody else does. Whether the ACC or ESPN are interested in doing this is anybody's guess.

(07-17-2022 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to create a P3 and establish stability for 12 years, how about this ACC (All Coast Conference)?

Miami, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia
Clemson, OK State, FSU, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah, Arizona St, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

This conference would have 8 of the Top 25 teams in the 10 year MSR. The SEC would also have 8 and the Big Ten 6. Only OK State and Baylor would have to buy out of their current conference. ESPN could help them with that.

That just looks like an ACC/PAC merge, while adding 2 from the B12.

(07-17-2022 05:18 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  If ESPN wanted to create a P3 and establish stability for 12 years, how about this ACC (All Coast Conference)?

Miami, Louisville, Pitt, UNC, BC, Syracuse, Duke, Virginia
Clemson, OK State, FSU, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah, Arizona St, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

This conference would have 8 of the Top 25 teams in the 10 year MSR. The SEC would also have 8 and the Big Ten 6. Only OK State and Baylor would have to buy out of their current conference. ESPN could help them with that.

That just looks like an ACC/PAC merge, while adding 2 from the B12.

Pretty much. That's because the ACC doesn't have any options that will significantly improve per school revenue, and probably should be focused instead on heading off future defections that could adversely affect their survival as a P5 (or 4 or 3) conference. My guess is that there may be a window to do something now before either the B1G or SEC or both take further steps toward consolidating into a P2, but that window won't be open for long. This is something that could be done, but probably only if it is done in the next few months. The longer it takes the less likely the ACC doesn't eventually get emasculated.

(07-15-2022 02:39 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 01:19 PM)Schema Wrote:  Unfortunately, you lost me at Step 2. If you are going to remain separate conferences and still play conference championship games, in my opinion, you still need a conference schedule. In your scenario where you have three conferences working together and sharing a network(s), each school in conference 1 could play eight games from their own conference, one from conference 2, one from conference 3, and then have two open spots for SEC/B1G/G5/FCS games. Just like now, the eight games within your own conference determines the participants in each conference championship game.

A couple things

(1) Allowing ADs to schedule 10 of their 12 games allows teams to self-select toward brands that are more equivalent to their own. Swarbrick can schedule Michigan, USC, Florida State, and Pittsburgh to come to South Bend one year while John Currie (WF AD) might get NC State, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, and Virginia. This is a net positive for the network(s) because it creates more total 3M-viewer games.

(2) Notre Dame compromised at 5 ACC controlled games. Double that to 10 and you lost them. Drop it to 2 and you have a new partner. Incorporating the Irish (and their ability to schedule Big Ten teams) is the greatest single boost in TV revenue for the ACC+.

(3) Dropping "Conference Championship Games" and replacing them with regional "Playoff Games" is another money-making move. Remember that 7-5 Pittsburgh team? They were the second best team in the ACC, even if it were a single division. The plan here would be to take the #1 team from each region (even if they played few games against other teams in that region) and pair them against an at large team (like the 9-3 Lions team who beat Pitt).

A note here. I said standings would be based on 10-game record against Power teams; that may have been a half-measure. Instead, standings should be based on the entire 12-game record, with Power-Wins-By-Power-Opponents as a non-subjective tie-breaker (if head-to-head is unavailable).

Pitt in 2018 at 7-5 wasn't the second best team. Syracuse finished #15 that year.

(07-17-2022 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Starting what conference? An academic one that is not looking to fund an athletic departments?

I would say it is fair to say you can't count on Cal being a top-10 team. Is that a positive?

So it is a weighted assessment of what they could pull* likelihood they do. And Cal is not good in either case. Even in a top-10 year, I'd have concern over a BIG CA watching Cal in a middle class conference.

At some level, the ability to be good is why top football brands (not favorite name schools) are top football brands. I don't think you can easily decouple that. There are other factors, like natural captive audience, but also having a constituency that still cares about football.

Imo the term flagship is egregiously overused and overvalued, more a message board fan thing. At best it is something a BIG could afford to factor in, at worst nothing more than fan delusion thinking Arizona has extra value. No offense to AZ, but it is not a destination school, no more than any warm climate school draws right now. It is like when fans of schools start arguing which college town is better. They're both college towns. Only those that haven't left their bubble think there is a real difference. Academics leading these decisions have left the bubble.

Well, IIRC, last year, Cal's athletic budget was about $110 million. That's a lot of money. I think they even soak their students with $25m in fees despite cashing a P5 paycheck. That's an over-commitment to athletics, IMO. I think they sponsor 30 sports.

I'm not sure the terms flagship is overused. The SEC and B1G, the two most valuable conferences, are stuffed with flagships. That's basically what they are interested in having - more than AAU or academics or anything else, they like flagships. All their schools are flagships, or else elite privates. Basically, unless you are a flagship, an elite private, or functionally a flagship equivalent (e.g., UCLA, Texas AM), they aren't interested.

IMO that is not a coincidence, it is because flagships dominate states and have national visibility. Now, that doesn't apply to "flagships" of tiny states. Nobody is looking to add Maine or South Dakota or Rhode Island. But Arizona and Cal and Colorado or not such states.

So to me, it is almost axiomatic that they are more valuable than the nB12 schools, none of which are flagships or elite privates (by which I mean truly elite, like Notre Dame and USC, not Baylor/SMU level), save for Kansas.

We'll just have to see.

Not all flagships dominate states. See Buffalo and Stony Brook. See UMass. See Cal-Berkleley. The flagships of the midwest and south grab T-shirt fans in a way those in the northeast and west do not. Its just a different culture. A big % if not most of the MAC and Sun Belt schools fans are fans of Enormous State U. first and their own school second. I had a friend who helped promoting the FBS move at La. Tech and told me how disgusted she was when half the fans left at halftime to go watch the LSU game on TV.

Well, I did say that not all flagships were valuable - e.g., South Dakota, Maine, and Rhode Island were specifically mentioned. I think UMass is the same kind of thing, and Buffalo and Stony Brook, I'm not even sure most outside of New York is aware of their existence much less that they are flagships (heck to me, two flagships means there is no flagship), so the same category. Unlike most flagships, which have had that status for decades or even more than a century, I believe those schools were designated such just earlier this year, which IMO gives them no accumulated status as such.

IMO Cal, with its longstanding P5 membership, $100m budget, etc. is clearly not that kind of "flagship", it is in the same zone as the SEC, B1G and PAC flagships, which it is one of. Of course, because California is such a massive state, it doesn't dominate the state like say Arkansas dominates Arkansas, but it has the size and reach of a flagship. Probably why it has always been in a "power" conference and none of those schools you mention has ever been.

My overall point was just that I do not believe the "flagship" term is much overused. The flagship concept is important. They dominate the most valuable conferences. And even in the ACC, B12 and PAC, just about all of the most valuable schools, the ones most likely to be desired by the SEC and B1G, I would say are flagships - North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Utah. Clemson is an exception. And Notre Dame and Miami are elite privates who qualify too. FSU too, but they are kind of like Texas AM, a second-banana in a massive state, such that their profile would be "flagship" in most smaller states.

To me, the flagship status is very telling. And it explains why the nB12 has the "security of the unwanted" - its schools are not likely to be invited by the SEC or B1G because, save for Kansas, no flagships.

Iowa St., Kansas St., Oklahoma St. and because of the massive size of the state, Texas Tech and Houston, aren't a whole lot different than the Purdues, Michigan St.s, Auburns and Mississippi St.s of the Big 10 and SEC.

The Big 10 and SEC do have some schools with the advantage of being both liberal arts flagship and land grant-LSU, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio St., etc.

Well, Auburn is a blue-blood school or very close to it, so IMO way different from the nB12 schools you mention. I agree that Purdue and Mississippi State aren't much different from Iowa State, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State, but these are the bottom schools of the B1G and SEC, and they would not get close to being added by them now if they were on the market, so IMO not much basis for comparing them.

Flagships of major states are IMO desired. Schools like Kansas State, Houston, and other nB12 schools are not desired by anyone, IMO. That is IMO why the nB12 "hung together" last year after TX and OU left. Nobody wanted any of those schools. It's also why many think the PAC is in much more danger of losing more schools to the B1G than is the nB12. Even with UCLA and USC gone, it has arguably desirable flagships. The nB12 doesn't.

(07-17-2022 11:34 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, IIRC, last year, Cal's athletic budget was about $110 million. That's a lot of money. I think they even soak their students with $25m in fees despite cashing a P5 paycheck. That's an over-commitment to athletics, IMO. I think they sponsor 30 sports.

I'm not sure the terms flagship is overused. The SEC and B1G, the two most valuable conferences, are stuffed with flagships. That's basically what they are interested in having - more than AAU or academics or anything else, they like flagships. All their schools are flagships, or else elite privates. Basically, unless you are a flagship, an elite private, or functionally a flagship equivalent (e.g., UCLA, Texas AM), they aren't interested.

IMO that is not a coincidence, it is because flagships dominate states and have national visibility. Now, that doesn't apply to "flagships" of tiny states. Nobody is looking to add Maine or South Dakota or Rhode Island. But Arizona and Cal and Colorado or not such states.

So to me, it is almost axiomatic that they are more valuable than the nB12 schools, none of which are flagships or elite privates (by which I mean truly elite, like Notre Dame and USC, not Baylor/SMU level), save for Kansas.

We'll just have to see.

Not all flagships dominate states. See Buffalo and Stony Brook. See UMass. See Cal-Berkleley. The flagships of the midwest and south grab T-shirt fans in a way those in the northeast and west do not. Its just a different culture. A big % if not most of the MAC and Sun Belt schools fans are fans of Enormous State U. first and their own school second. I had a friend who helped promoting the FBS move at La. Tech and told me how disgusted she was when half the fans left at halftime to go watch the LSU game on TV.

Well, I did say that not all flagships were valuable - e.g., South Dakota, Maine, and Rhode Island were specifically mentioned. I think UMass is the same kind of thing, and Buffalo and Stony Brook, I'm not even sure most outside of New York is aware of their existence much less that they are flagships (heck to me, two flagships means there is no flagship), so the same category. Unlike most flagships, which have had that status for decades or even more than a century, I believe those schools were designated such just earlier this year, which IMO gives them no accumulated status as such.

IMO Cal, with its longstanding P5 membership, $100m budget, etc. is clearly not that kind of "flagship", it is in the same zone as the SEC, B1G and PAC flagships, which it is one of. Of course, because California is such a massive state, it doesn't dominate the state like say Arkansas dominates Arkansas, but it has the size and reach of a flagship. Probably why it has always been in a "power" conference and none of those schools you mention has ever been.

My overall point was just that I do not believe the "flagship" term is much overused. The flagship concept is important. They dominate the most valuable conferences. And even in the ACC, B12 and PAC, just about all of the most valuable schools, the ones most likely to be desired by the SEC and B1G, I would say are flagships - North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Utah. Clemson is an exception. And Notre Dame and Miami are elite privates who qualify too. FSU too, but they are kind of like Texas AM, a second-banana in a massive state, such that their profile would be "flagship" in most smaller states.

To me, the flagship status is very telling. And it explains why the nB12 has the "security of the unwanted" - its schools are not likely to be invited by the SEC or B1G because, save for Kansas, no flagships.

Iowa St., Kansas St., Oklahoma St. and because of the massive size of the state, Texas Tech and Houston, aren't a whole lot different than the Purdues, Michigan St.s, Auburns and Mississippi St.s of the Big 10 and SEC.

If you were building the Big Ten or SEC from scratch today, would you invite those schools? I doubt it.

If Texas Tech were....scratch that line of thought. If Texas Tech were anywhere east of a I-35, they'd be Texas A&M

Texas Tech is a fine school and I admire their athletic history. But Lubbock is a truly desolate place. For hundreds of miles in all directions there is nothing but scrub grass, oil wells, Cyclopean windmills, tumbleweeds, bleached cattle skulls, tarantulas, rattlesnakes, scorpions, giant centipedes, and stark rock outcroppings. It is 100 miles from Amarillo, itself in the Middle of Nowhere.

I really do not know how Texas Tech attracts students. It is a testament to its fortitude that it does.

(07-17-2022 11:34 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, IIRC, last year, Cal's athletic budget was about $110 million. That's a lot of money. I think they even soak their students with $25m in fees despite cashing a P5 paycheck. That's an over-commitment to athletics, IMO. I think they sponsor 30 sports.

I'm not sure the terms flagship is overused. The SEC and B1G, the two most valuable conferences, are stuffed with flagships. That's basically what they are interested in having - more than AAU or academics or anything else, they like flagships. All their schools are flagships, or else elite privates. Basically, unless you are a flagship, an elite private, or functionally a flagship equivalent (e.g., UCLA, Texas AM), they aren't interested.

IMO that is not a coincidence, it is because flagships dominate states and have national visibility. Now, that doesn't apply to "flagships" of tiny states. Nobody is looking to add Maine or South Dakota or Rhode Island. But Arizona and Cal and Colorado or not such states.

So to me, it is almost axiomatic that they are more valuable than the nB12 schools, none of which are flagships or elite privates (by which I mean truly elite, like Notre Dame and USC, not Baylor/SMU level), save for Kansas.

We'll just have to see.

Not all flagships dominate states. See Buffalo and Stony Brook. See UMass. See Cal-Berkleley. The flagships of the midwest and south grab T-shirt fans in a way those in the northeast and west do not. Its just a different culture. A big % if not most of the MAC and Sun Belt schools fans are fans of Enormous State U. first and their own school second. I had a friend who helped promoting the FBS move at La. Tech and told me how disgusted she was when half the fans left at halftime to go watch the LSU game on TV.

Well, I did say that not all flagships were valuable - e.g., South Dakota, Maine, and Rhode Island were specifically mentioned. I think UMass is the same kind of thing, and Buffalo and Stony Brook, I'm not even sure most outside of New York is aware of their existence much less that they are flagships (heck to me, two flagships means there is no flagship), so the same category. Unlike most flagships, which have had that status for decades or even more than a century, I believe those schools were designated such just earlier this year, which IMO gives them no accumulated status as such.

IMO Cal, with its longstanding P5 membership, $100m budget, etc. is clearly not that kind of "flagship", it is in the same zone as the SEC, B1G and PAC flagships, which it is one of. Of course, because California is such a massive state, it doesn't dominate the state like say Arkansas dominates Arkansas, but it has the size and reach of a flagship. Probably why it has always been in a "power" conference and none of those schools you mention has ever been.

My overall point was just that I do not believe the "flagship" term is much overused. The flagship concept is important. They dominate the most valuable conferences. And even in the ACC, B12 and PAC, just about all of the most valuable schools, the ones most likely to be desired by the SEC and B1G, I would say are flagships - North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Utah. Clemson is an exception. And Notre Dame and Miami are elite privates who qualify too. FSU too, but they are kind of like Texas AM, a second-banana in a massive state, such that their profile would be "flagship" in most smaller states.

To me, the flagship status is very telling. And it explains why the nB12 has the "security of the unwanted" - its schools are not likely to be invited by the SEC or B1G because, save for Kansas, no flagships.

Iowa St., Kansas St., Oklahoma St. and because of the massive size of the state, Texas Tech and Houston, aren't a whole lot different than the Purdues, Michigan St.s, Auburns and Mississippi St.s of the Big 10 and SEC.

If you were building the Big Ten or SEC from scratch today, would you invite those schools? I doubt it.

If Texas Tech were....scratch that line of thought. If Texas Tech were anywhere east of a I-35, they'd be Texas A&M

Michigan State is like the 12 largest university in the country. They are far and above any big12 school.