I think they've already calledIf Stanford calls, B1G picks up and sees what kind of influence Stanford has on Notre Dame.
I think they've already calledIf Stanford calls, B1G picks up and sees what kind of influence Stanford has on Notre Dame.
I'd guess they did offer texas. But wanted no part of Oklahoma. And texas wouldn't go without them.It also depends on where they think it rounds out.
If 20. Stanford only in if they bring notre dame. Cal no shot.
If 24. Stanford has a much better shot.
If 28. Cal has a shot.
I also think the big ten might be content at 18 until 2032 or so. It’s only 7-8 more years. And breaking up the ACC in 2032 you only have to settle a few years of their contract. Not 13
In retrospect Warren was really asleep at the wheel. The big ten should’ve offered Texas and Oklahoma full membership starting in 2024
The league would be at 20 right now and likely done.
Could beI'd guess they did offer texas. But wanted no part of Oklahoma. And texas wouldn't go without them.
I don't think the academics are even close.Could be
If we are thinking about Florida state we should’ve just taken Oklahoma
You are correct that neither Florida state or Oklahoma fit the profile and both are as good as NebraskaI don't think the academics are even close.
Can we quit pretending there's a link between academics, research and athletics? This is about eyeballs, advertisers and Saturdays in the fall. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of any of the realignment crap, but we can't turn back the clock and future affiliations shouldn't be dictated by an artificial pretense of academics.I don't think the academics are even close.
It's not pretend.Can we quit pretending there's a link between academics, research and athletics? This is about eyeballs, advertisers and Saturdays in the fall. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of any of the realignment crap, but we can't turn back the clock and future affiliations shouldn't be dictated by an artificial pretense of academics.
Could be the case, and the B1G answered and could have said "We'll get back to you."I think they've already called
Correct. The B1G (along with original member U of Chicago) is a research consortium. The research grants they pull in dwarf college sports revenue. You won't see a Boise State type school admitted ever. It does matter.It's not pretend.
Is there a tie to athletics, though? Why would or should the research consortium exclude schools based on athletic ability? If MIT wanted in on the research consortium, would it be excluded because of athletics (or lack thereof)? Would the research consortium lose out on grants because MIT doesn't play Big 10 football? The answer is no and I doubt seriously that there is any requirement, anywhere, that ties research to athletics except in the minds of college presidents and the Big 10 shouldn't hamstring its athletic programs artificially.Correct. The B1G (along with original member U of Chicago) is a research consortium. The research grants they pull in dwarf college sports revenue. You won't see a Boise State type school admitted ever. It does matter.
My reference was why Oklahoma would never be in B1G. Probably not FSU either. But Miami and UNC yes.Can we quit pretending there's a link between academics, research and athletics? This is about eyeballs, advertisers and Saturdays in the fall. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of any of the realignment crap, but we can't turn back the clock and future affiliations shouldn't be dictated by an artificial pretense of academics.
Both Stanford and Cal will be in the B1G, anyone who thinks institutions with their prestige academically and financially are going to the Mountain West are delusional.
Is there a tie to athletics, though? Why would or should the research consortium exclude schools based on athletic ability? If MIT wanted in on the research consortium, would it be excluded because of athletics (or lack thereof)? Would the research consortium lose out on grants because MIT doesn't play Big 10 football? The answer is no and I doubt seriously that there is any requirement, anywhere, that ties research to athletics except in the minds of college presidents and the Big 10 shouldn't hamstring its athletic programs artificially.
You are talking about different situations. We could definitely add someone to the research consortium, and not add them in athletics.Is there a tie to athletics, though? Why would or should the research consortium exclude schools based on athletic ability? If MIT wanted in on the research consortium, would it be excluded because of athletics (or lack thereof)? Would the research consortium lose out on grants because MIT doesn't play Big 10 football? The answer is no and I doubt seriously that there is any requirement, anywhere, that ties research to athletics except in the minds of college presidents and the Big 10 shouldn't hamstring its athletic programs artificially.
"You are correct that neither Florida state or Oklahoma fit the profile and both are as badYou are correct that neither Florida state or Oklahoma fit the profile and both are asgoodas Nebraska
I’m also often confused about when to use good or bad. They just seem so interchangeable."You are correct that neither Florida state or Oklahoma fit the profile and both are as badgoodas Nebraska"
The scuttle butt is that certain AAC teams - Rice, Tulane, SMU, and a few choice MWC teams with the hope for $10 million per year in TV.after all of the craziness of the weekend where the Pac-12 seemingly fell apart, things have fallen into a very murky phase.
there is a lot of rumor and speculation out there, but very little substance that I can see. Stanford and Cal to the ACC seems off for now, with at least 4 ACC schools seeming to be strongly in opposition. (which is enough to block any expansion)
so now a lot of the talk is back to the Mountain West and the AAC. the idea that keeps getting floated is that the remaining Pac-4 would somehow manage to 'recruit' enough teams from the MWC or the AAC in order to re-populate the PAC. technically, the PAC schools have until next year to find a solution, but realistically, if they want any kind of TV deal, they need an answer soon.
They will the instant 2024 hits and all the schools leaving for other conferences officially leave (so, probably like the end of the 2023-2024 school year when the last sports have finished).Maybe a dumb question but at what point does the Pac10 cease to be a P5 conference? Even if they merge with the Mountain West or AAC they’d mostly be compromised of G5 teams. If they dissolve entirely and the teams move to a G5 conference what would make that conference a P5 conference?
That's a joke. It would be minor league.If the Gophers eventually get kicked out of our super conference, I'll still watch. Maybe we can add more regional rivalries at that point like with NDSU and SDSU and be more like the old WCHA in hockey. Not ideal, but a potential silver lining? I have a lot of friends from that area so it would selfishly be fun for me and a ton of alums from those schools are in the Twin Cities.
I read some where that the Pac-? Has about $100 million in the bank. I’m not sure how valid the source was, but that kind of money gives them options. All they need to do is attract 6 new members and see if they can get 15 - 20 million per team in a new media deal, and they’ll be better off than joining the Mountain West. Heck, they could get $10 mil per team and still be better off than in the MW. The MW is in the middle of a 6 year, $270 million deal for 13 schools. That’s about $3.5 million annually per school.The PAC-4 just hired Oliver Luck as a consultant to figure out what the next steps should be. This is a solid hire. I know Oliver, and he's an outside-the-box thinker. Nobody is saying now that the league will survive and grow for certain, but their chances went up definitely- they are not zero.
Just FYI that FSU is ranked #55 by US News and World report this year. Tied in fact with Rutgers, Miami and Washington (who the B1G just let in). Minnesota is 62. So it’s not like they’re slouches academically.My reference was why Oklahoma would never be in B1G. Probably not FSU either. But Miami and UNC yes.
I’m not sure how they’d be better than the mountain west. With new members (likely mountain west, aac or other g5 teams) they’d be pretty much exactly the same as the mountain west because most of the teams come from a g5 conference.I read some where that the Pac-? Has about $100 million in the bank. I’m not sure how valid the source was, but that kind of money gives them options. All they need to do is attract 6 new members and see if they can get 15 - 20 million per team in a new media deal, and they’ll be better off than joining the Mountain West. Heck, they could get $10 mil per team and still be better off than in the MW. The MW is in the middle of a 6 year, $270 million deal for 13 schools. That’s about $3.5 million annually per school.