(04-19-2024 05:57 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:41 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  USF has no better chance of a Big Ten invite than Bill Dazzle has a shot — whilst dressed ala Grandpa of The Munsters and deploying the speaking voice of Gilligan's Island character Thurston Howell — at landing a date with Rebecca Ferguson.

However, I could foresee USF in either the Big 12 or ACC. And an SEC invite (at some point) is not an outlandish thought.

I agree. We have zero presence on the B1G radar, or the SEC radar.

But I think we're better than the nB12. FWIW I think the four corners schools are too.

I could see all of us in an expanded, diluted ACC if three or four schools leave that league. Maybe Kansas too, though they probably have B1G/SEC aspirations.

The old Big 12 disagrees with you since they left you out when picking the new Big 12. Like, they easily could have taken you over Houston or Cinci if they wanted to. Or even over Arizona a year ago if they had felt you improved, or as a package with Stanford or Cal if they thought you would be a value add. They didn't.

The nB12 also disagrees LOL. ACC took SMU over AAU USF.

(04-19-2024 04:08 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  If SMU had to practically crawl on their knees throwing money to get into the ACC, then how is USF with NO on-campus football stadium getting in the B1G above other ready-to-hit-the-ground-running proven programs? They're AAU? Get the heck outta here with that. B1G just added USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon. See the difference?

Relax man, I think everyone on this thread is pretty much in agreement...

And FWIW, if the stadium has got you spun up, we break ground this fall. You can check out the renderings online. So you can flip that NO to a YES soon...

It's interesting just the wild thought that somehow, someway USF might get a look from the P2 launches a few of the posters here into orbit...

(04-19-2024 08:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 04:08 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  If SMU had to practically crawl on their knees throwing money to get into the ACC, then how is USF with NO on-campus football stadium getting in the B1G above other ready-to-hit-the-ground-running proven programs? They're AAU? Get the heck outta here with that. B1G just added USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon. See the difference?

Relax man, I think everyone on this thread is pretty much in agreement...

And FWIW, if the stadium has got you spun up, we break ground this fall. You can check out the renderings online. So you can flip that NO to a YES soon...

Oh, I'm aware of the stadium project. When is it set to open - 2027? FWIW, I'm not anti-USF. That said, suggesting they're more than a dark horse for the B1G is just silly.

We’ve reached peak offseason early this year. This thread is insane.

(04-19-2024 06:09 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:57 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:41 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  USF has no better chance of a Big Ten invite than Bill Dazzle has a shot — whilst dressed ala Grandpa of The Munsters and deploying the speaking voice of Gilligan's Island character Thurston Howell — at landing a date with Rebecca Ferguson.

However, I could foresee USF in either the Big 12 or ACC. And an SEC invite (at some point) is not an outlandish thought.

I agree. We have zero presence on the B1G radar, or the SEC radar.

But I think we're better than the nB12. FWIW I think the four corners schools are too.

I could see all of us in an expanded, diluted ACC if three or four schools leave that league. Maybe Kansas too, though they probably have B1G/SEC aspirations.

The old Big 12 disagrees with you since they left you out when picking the new Big 12. Like, they easily could have taken you over Houston or Cinci if they wanted to. Or even over Arizona a year ago if they had felt you improved, or as a package with Stanford or Cal if they thought you would be a value add. They didn't.

The nB12 also disagrees LOL. ACC took SMU over AAU USF.

Apples and oranges.

SMU bought their way in. And they are in Dallas, TX.

uSF would be a third Florida school despite being in a decent market.

If FSU and Miami had already left, USF would be considered differently.

(04-19-2024 05:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 04:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 04:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 04:00 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 01:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  With all due respect to the USF fans out there, NO. This is so wrong. Get over the Rutgers heartburn - we just added USC, Washington and Oregon. It is about pure, unequivocal, revenue power brands from this point forward. The Big Ten would take every AAU member currently in the ACC plus FSU and Clemson along with the Four Corners schools over USF.

With all due respect to your opinion...

Let's look at Metro areas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_me...ical_areas

The Tampa Bay area ranks 17th

Others ahead of them:

Atlanta's 6th

Miami's 9th.

Phoenix is 10th

San Francisco's 13

(and Denver is 19th)

(Oh and Maryland and Rutgers are 1 and 7...)

So if 24 is the magic number, then, the Big10 could do worse than to add:

GT, Miami, AZ State, Stanford, USF, and Colorado

All are AAU. And all bring new states, except Stanford.

Stanford also apparently has the issue that USC (and others in the Big10) are hesitant about another California school due to recruiting. (They also seemed to tie themselves to Cal-Berkeley, which was apparently a non-starter.)

I've said it before - I don't think it was a coincidence that Miami and USF made AAU this time around. (Or ASU, for that matter.)

And I definitely could see Fox suggesting adding Miami and USF paired, similar to how USC and UCLA were added.

So you are welcome to your opinion (as I am to mine, of course), but I just think you are incorrect in this.

No, Fox is not going to suggest this. My goodness! Putting aside Stanford, Cal would get into the Big Ten 100 times out of 100 over USF, too. I actually agree that if we were using my own 2010 standards that ASU, Colorado and Georgia Tech would be viable Big Ten candidates… but it’s not 2010 anymore.

I’ve already repeatedly stated that markets and academics don’t matter anymore and I’m saying that as someone that was pretty much known as the “markets and academics” guy. The realignment world has changed and the financial standards are exponentially higher than 10 to 15 years ago.

In essence, think like a fan! Get the most common denominator football matchup that’s most attractive to the casual sports fan nationwide and that’s what’s going to drive the Big Ten and SEC going forward. If it brings in a big market like Miami, then that’s great, but that’s not the most relevant metric. Realignment is honestly a lot simpler than it was before (and I don’t say that this is a good thing).

bolded - can you prove that and not just assert it?

We have heard/read people from Cal, making it clear that no combinations of Cal and any other PAC school was getting into the Big10. They didn't specifically say why, but others have said that there were concerns about recruiting, and that Cal's part in the UCLA mess made them a non-starter, at least for now.

So, sorry, but I just don't buy your Stanford assertions.

I think academics are at a point where they need to meet a minimum standard, but it really seems like markets (and new states) are still of primary interest for the Big10.

Though I'll agree that matchups are important.

And for the Big10, I also think basketball powers have a decent chance to step in the door (Like Kansas, Duke, Arizona, and Virginia).

I think it's fair to say that the SEC has somewhat different metrics they look at. And I think the mistake that you're making is to try to paint the Big10 with an SEC brush because of the TX/OK addition.

The justification for adding USF to the Big Ten would be that it’s a major market school with excellent academics in *spite* of its lack of football brand. That is effectively the OP position.

So, yes, it’s perfectly logical that if you’re saying that football brand is irrelevant, then you’re going by pure market and academic metrics. The San Francisco Bay Area has the most Big Ten alums of any market in the US that isn’t in the Big Ten as of today. (Please see my analysis of Big Ten alumni distribution that ended up getting cited by business publications and urban planning journalists. Jim Delany read my blog, too. I don’t need to prove anything here.) That market is also the wealthiest one in the United States with disproportionate economic and cultural power due to Silicon Valley. Cal is the best public university in country academically and Stanford is arguably the best university in the country period. Stanford and Cal have straight up better market and academic metrics than USF (and frankly anyone left outside of the Big Ten and SEC) and to the extent that you *do* bring in football and overall athletic brand, Stanford and Cal are better on those metrics, too.

If only they had been added before 2 other schools from the state of California had been added...

(04-19-2024 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:03 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 01:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  With all due respect to the USF fans out there, NO. This is so wrong. Get over the Rutgers heartburn - we just added USC, Washington and Oregon. It is about pure, unequivocal, revenue power brands from this point forward. The Big Ten would take every AAU member currently in the ACC plus FSU and Clemson along with the Four Corners schools over USF.

I want to bet you on this because I've been drawing conference realignment on napkins since Nixon. If I'm right, I get a featured article on your blog. If you're right, I will venmo you money for a Chicago Deep Dish pizza.

Also, Clemson is a non-starter. The Big Ten isn't willingly contending with a Big Ten-cash inflused Clemson from Nowhereseville, South Carolina winning in football in blowout fashion over the other Big Ten schools who have been here in the freezing cold together for almost 100 years.

No wagering for me, although you will have my respect and kudos if your prediction is correct.

Clemson is an unlikely Big Ten candidate overall, but my only point is that they’d still get into the league over USF.

This thread has potential, let the man ramble!

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:22 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I don't know that USF is that high on the Big 10's list but they are an option for sure as a huge school, an AAU school, in a good market. They do have some football history especially in that 2007 season but I think they could have a stronger athletic department.

That being said, I think USF would be a better fit for the SEC, especially if FSU and/or Miami go to the Big 10.

USF may get into the Big 12 or ACC at some point (if the latter loses FSU and/or Miami), but I’m not seeing them in the SEC, either. This isn’t like the SEC overriding Texas A&M’s wishes to get the even more valuable UT. UF would nix any USF addition immediately and the rest of the SEC would oblige.

https://wtaw.com/texas-am-system-board-r...-join-sec/

Come on, man. We had some loud and angry alumni, sure, but our BoR was 1 vote shy of unanimous. They were far more unified than the B1G Presidents were on Penn St.

(04-19-2024 02:29 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  We’re past the markets and academics part of realignment. Rutgers was the last realignment move based on markets.

If Stanford didn’t get a B1G invite and we’re talking here about the top academic FBS school located in the heart of Silicon Valley with tons of influential alumni…..what makes you think South Florida will?

The B1G will not add a school straight from the G5 ranks. And no, Rutgers’ transition year in the AAC doesn’t count (the AAC had the Big East AQ autobid for that season which was the last year of the BCS).

Stanford didn't get an invite because there is no money in adding a school that has never in its existence (including the pre-PC hysteria Stanford Indians days) used its planetary-size coffers to be anything more than middle of the road in a deceased conference. That alone shows a lack of willingness to contribute as much as possible to the Big Ten.

On the other hand, South Florida is on an upward trajectory and is doing all it can with what it has. And what it has is growing by the minute. Beyond that, South Florida is ground zero for getting 5-star athletes (IMG Academy for example). The Big Ten always seems to lack these elite athletes and playing USF and Miami (I'd take both) would greatly help with this longtime issue that creeps up in big games (see: barely any Big Ten national champions in money sports since color TV).

Stanford was the best team in the Pac 12 in the 2010s. I know, I know, ancient history, but, um, last time I checked, Stanford was "in its existence" during the 2010s, and "the best" is somewhat better than "middle of the road". But, please, continue.

I watched Cincinnati play USF in football every year from 2003 to 2022 - 20 games in a row. The series is close, 13 wins for UC and 7 for USF - and with Cincinnati winning the last 5 in a row - the series was 8 to 7 in 2017. Despite 20 straight years of playing in a highly competitive series, this game was never a big deal, no one circled it on the calendar, it was never the 'big game', I never met anyone with passion for beating USF or anyone who rooted for USF or anyone who thought of USF except during the actual game.

My point is that aside from looking forward to a trip to Tampa in the fall, and Cincinnati people really love Tampa, USF doesn't have any 'juice'. Maybe its because the school has focused on academics instead of sports which is a great decision. Maybe its because Tampa is full of folks from out of state who don't care about USF. Maybe its because Tampa folks root for the Bucs who have won the Super Bowl recently. Maybe its becuase USF is a 'newer' school without roots. Whatever the reason, except against UCF, folks just aren't passionate for playing USF. The school just seems vanilla.

On the other hand, UCF has passionate fans. Despite only playing 9 games and the series starting in 2015, UC fans care about UCF. If USF wants to make it into the P4 or M2 or whatever its being called, they need to develop a fan base that brings passion. UCF would be a great model to follow. Until then the $$$ just won't be there.

(04-20-2024 09:05 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  I watched Cincinnati play USF in football every year from 2003 to 2022 - 20 games in a row. The series is close, 13 wins for UC and 7 for USF - and with Cincinnati winning the last 5 in a row - the series was 8 to 7 in 2017. Despite 20 straight years of playing in a highly competitive series, this game was never a big deal, no one circled it on the calendar, it was never the 'big game', I never met anyone with passion for beating USF or anyone who rooted for USF or anyone who thought of USF except during the actual game.

My point is that aside from looking forward to a trip to Tampa in the fall, and Cincinnati people really love Tampa, USF doesn't have any 'juice'. Maybe its because the school has focused on academics instead of sports which is a great decision. Maybe its because Tampa is full of folks from out of state who don't care about USF. Maybe its because Tampa folks root for the Bucs who have won the Super Bowl recently. Maybe its becuase USF is a 'newer' school without roots. Whatever the reason, except against UCF, folks just aren't passionate for playing USF. The school just seems vanilla.

On the other hand, UCF has passionate fans. Despite only playing 9 games and the series starting in 2015, UC fans care about UCF. If USF wants to make it into the P4 or M2 or whatever its being called, they need to develop a fan base that brings passion. UCF would be a great model to follow. Until then the $$$ just won't be there.

I mean in terms of academics USF > UCF but in terms of athletics UCF > USF. Assuming the Big Ten can't get FSU and/or Miami, I've had my eyes on UCF over USF. Now USF recently getting AAU status does help their case but the fact that UCF is in the club and having undefeated football seasons helps their case. If the Big Ten really cared about academics over athletics, Cal and Stanford would be in the Big Ten over Washington and Oregon, both AAU schools but not at the level of Cal and Stanford.

I'm not saying USF won't ever get there but they have to show results on the field first. Right now they're the fifth choice in Florida and behind UCF, even for the Big Ten.

no, its not.

There are only 3 candidates from Florida that B1G will be considering, the "darkhorse" of the 3 is due to currently being in the SEC.

(04-19-2024 08:33 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 08:27 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 04:08 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  If SMU had to practically crawl on their knees throwing money to get into the ACC, then how is USF with NO on-campus football stadium getting in the B1G above other ready-to-hit-the-ground-running proven programs? They're AAU? Get the heck outta here with that. B1G just added USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon. See the difference?

Relax man, I think everyone on this thread is pretty much in agreement...

And FWIW, if the stadium has got you spun up, we break ground this fall. You can check out the renderings online. So you can flip that NO to a YES soon...

Oh, I'm aware of the stadium project. When is it set to open - 2027? FWIW, I'm not anti-USF. That said, suggesting they're more than a dark horse for the B1G is just silly.

We all agree the horse is really dark.

Honestly, the fact that we are finally deserving a nonsense thread on this board, and so many are posting... means we've finally 'arrived'.

To quote Steve Perry... Don't stop believing, Bulls fans.

(04-19-2024 02:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  We’re past the markets and academics part of realignment. Rutgers was the last realignment move based on markets.

If Stanford didn’t get a B1G invite and we’re talking here about the top academic FBS school located in the heart of Silicon Valley with tons of influential alumni…..what makes you think South Florida will?

The B1G will not add a school straight from the G5 ranks. And no, Rutgers’ transition year in the AAC doesn’t count (the AAC had the Big East AQ autobid for that season which was the last year of the BCS).

USF was a former power conference school with Rutgers. To be fair? USF got left behind, but they are in a lot better position to join the Big 10 then they were around 2010. If ESPN moves Clemson, FSU, NC State and Miami into SEC? USF would be the Big 10's only place to go to get into the state of Florida. It is still a hot school to grab as it is Florida.

(04-19-2024 10:10 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  We’ve reached peak offseason early this year. This thread is insane.

This isn't even the appetizer. Remember how crazy last summer was? We're just getting started!

(04-20-2024 09:05 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  I watched Cincinnati play USF in football every year from 2003 to 2022 - 20 games in a row. The series is close, 13 wins for UC and 7 for USF - and with Cincinnati winning the last 5 in a row - the series was 8 to 7 in 2017. Despite 20 straight years of playing in a highly competitive series, this game was never a big deal, no one circled it on the calendar, it was never the 'big game', I never met anyone with passion for beating USF or anyone who rooted for USF or anyone who thought of USF except during the actual game.

My point is that aside from looking forward to a trip to Tampa in the fall, and Cincinnati people really love Tampa, USF doesn't have any 'juice'. Maybe its because the school has focused on academics instead of sports which is a great decision. Maybe its because Tampa is full of folks from out of state who don't care about USF. Maybe its because Tampa folks root for the Bucs who have won the Super Bowl recently. Maybe its becuase USF is a 'newer' school without roots. Whatever the reason, except against UCF, folks just aren't passionate for playing USF. The school just seems vanilla.

On the other hand, UCF has passionate fans. Despite only playing 9 games and the series starting in 2015, UC fans care about UCF. If USF wants to make it into the P4 or M2 or whatever its being called, they need to develop a fan base that brings passion. UCF would be a great model to follow. Until then the $$$ just won't be there.

USF actually was on a freight train to success until their football coach pissed off McMurphy and he took down the entire program so far that they're just now starting to recover, 15 years later.

(04-20-2024 02:45 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  We’re past the markets and academics part of realignment. Rutgers was the last realignment move based on markets.

If Stanford didn’t get a B1G invite and we’re talking here about the top academic FBS school located in the heart of Silicon Valley with tons of influential alumni…..what makes you think South Florida will?

The B1G will not add a school straight from the G5 ranks. And no, Rutgers’ transition year in the AAC doesn’t count (the AAC had the Big East AQ autobid for that season which was the last year of the BCS).

USF was a former power conference school with Rutgers. To be fair? USF got left behind, but they are in a lot better position to join the Big 10 then they were around 2010. If ESPN moves Clemson, FSU, NC State and Miami into SEC? USF would be the Big 10's only place to go to get into the state of Florida. It is still a hot school to grab as it is Florida.

UCF says hi.

(04-19-2024 05:57 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 05:41 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  USF has no better chance of a Big Ten invite than Bill Dazzle has a shot — whilst dressed ala Grandpa of The Munsters and deploying the speaking voice of Gilligan's Island character Thurston Howell — at landing a date with Rebecca Ferguson.

However, I could foresee USF in either the Big 12 or ACC. And an SEC invite (at some point) is not an outlandish thought.

I agree. We have zero presence on the B1G radar, or the SEC radar.

But I think we're better than the nB12. FWIW I think the four corners schools are too.

I could see all of us in an expanded, diluted ACC if three or four schools leave that league. Maybe Kansas too, though they probably have B1G/SEC aspirations.

The old Big 12 disagrees with you since they left you out when picking the new Big 12. Like, they easily could have taken you over Houston or Cinci if they wanted to. Or even over Arizona a year ago if they had felt you improved, or as a package with Stanford or Cal if they thought you would be a value add. They didn't.

Really, I don't care about the nB12. I did before we got AAU status, which was when they passed us over, but now, no.

As an AAU school we should aim higher, I think, and bide our time in the AAC until then. I mean, if they called, we'd accept, but it wouldn't be a destination for us. I don't think it is for the four-corners schools either.