Jump to content

bullet

Full Members
  • Posts

    3454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bullet

  1. I agree its most likely the Big 10 waits 5-6 years to expand. They have publicly said things similar to #1. But situations change. Even Wilner thinks UW and Oregon end up in the Big 10 in 2031.
  2. I live in Atlanta now, so I don't get to too many games in Austin. McMurphy and at least one other have said they aren't dilutive. McMurphy still believes UW and Oregon are inevitable in the Big 10 with the only issue being when. There are 6 at large spots. The Big 10 and SEC would love to have all the schools who were regular contenders. In the BCS/playoff era, the SEC would have had 75 slots in the 24 years even without UT and OU, so that is slightly more than 3 per year. The Big 10 and SEC would love to suck up all 6 of those wildcard slots in addition to their champ being in. Given how much the media market is changing, 2036 is an eternity. And I don't think the Big 10 is especially interested in Clemson, knows FSU would prefer the SEC and knows UNC and UVA, as well as Cal and Stanford, ARE dilutive. If they go to 18, they still have room for the Catholics and Convicts. Unless ESPN makes a bunch more net in advertising with FSU in the SEC, I don't see anyone getting out of the GOR in the next 10 years.
  3. They had a whole presentation on the possibility of leaving for the Big 12 covered on the Shaggy board. Their president Barron, formerly a UT prof, had no interest and proceeded to lock them in for 20 years to the ACC. One of the 247/365 blogger types was at the meeting and did a report on it. Clemson discussed it at several board meetings. Doesn't mean there will be any action.
  4. I've seen enough reliable people say it that I think UW and Oregon, as part of the Big 10 (not as part of the Pac 10) bring enough to justify addition. They just don't bring up the average any noticeable amount. So it would be a strategic addition to dominate the west coast and get more playoff spots. They aren't going to bring bunches more money to anyone. Cal and Stanford were definitely dilutive.
  5. The point is that Stanford could easily be replaced by Cal. Or even UCLA.
  6. But at the same time he was talking 18 to 20 back when they moved to 14. I remember some of the ADs talking about their doubts about getting that big.
  7. But Oregon and Washington are teams that have been and will be playoff contenders. Along with FSU, Clemson, Miami and Notre Dame, they complete the list of teams who can compete more than once in a blue moon who aren't already heading to the Big 10 or SEC. I guess Colorado fits in too, but it isn't clear if they are getting back to their early 70s and late 80s to early 00s form. In the cord cutting future, you need brands. Fact is that UW and Oregon have had serious discussions with the Big 10.
  8. Kentucky hasn't. They got banned from the tourney for a couple years early 90s due to the 20k cash in the Emery Air Freight package. They got the death penalty in 52-53 due to the point shaving scandal in college basketball. They had won 3 of the past 4 NCAA titles and only played in the NIT the other year. In 53-54 the NCAA declared key players ineligible, so UK unbeaten and #1 stayed home for the postseason. Some schools like UNC get leniency. Other schools like UK get nailed.
  9. I agree. The equal revenue sharing was a sign that the conferences were relatively equal in value and pretty similar institutions. The Big 10 was for many years. The SEC schools were pretty similar for many years as institutions even though some were football powers. And nobody has ever been as unequal with new members as the Big 10. Nebraska had over a $50 million buy-in. I think year they will finally come out ahead of Iowa St. since they left the Big 12. Rutgers had a buy-in over $200 million. Maryland, I'm not sure of the amount, but it was less than Rutgers but closer to them than to NU.
  10. Was reading an article around 2010. Every one of the Big 8 schools increased their recruiting in Texas after joining the Big 12---except Colorado. They had a slight decrease. Maybe that had something to do with their decline.
  11. This is an example of what is wrong with the NCAA. The biggest offense was players getting involved with agents. They forced Georgia Tech to forfeit an ACC championship because 1 player took $300 of clothing from an agent, which he paid back after the investigation started. USC got no benefit from an about to go pro Reggie Bush being involved with agents. Yet when UNC has fictional classes to keep their "student"-athletes eligible, NCAA decides not to do anything about it.
  12. Their Stanford series has only been going on since 1988. They only played a handful of times before that. Notre Dame doesn't care about anyone but USC and Navy. They had decades long series with Purdue and Michigan St. they dropped. They had a heated series with Michigan for many years they dropped. They had Catholics vs. Convicts and dropped that. Notre Dame only cares about Notre Dame, but their fans do care about the USC and Navy games.
  13. One of their great teams had 23. #2 in the country was Virginia Tech with 8. Nebraska had more than any other CONFERENCE in the country. They did have some great teams 94-97.
  14. They want a Tier I research university that's really highly rated, bring up Cal-Davis. Probably do every bit as well on TV as UNLV and Colorado St. Maybe almost as well as Fresno, SDSU, Rice, Tulane and Tulsa.
  15. Big 12 needed Houston the same reason SDSU is the Pac's top choice, when they weren't even on the radar for the Big 12. Its about getting attention in a major market where you recruit. BYU was effectively a P5 school. Cincy just got in the playoff and WVU needed them. UCF was the one they could have done without. They are another island. But UC, UCF and UH were all about equal value.
  16. Sent it discussed enough that I'm pretty sure the Pac 12 was at least talking to UofH. They seemed to be their top G5 candidate over the past few years.
  17. Stanford had the 7th best winning record from 2010-2019. They were 92nd from 2000-2009. That's their history. Very up and down. Don't think the are a particularly good add and their attraction to Notre Dame is all about the Bay Area. ND could care less about them.
  18. NO way. The SEC champ routing Ohio St. 8 years out of 10, Michigan 1 out of 10 and losing to Ohio St. the other year just won't be that interesting.
  19. Rutgers was relevant 100 years before Texas won back to back. 1869-1870.
  20. Because he’s the only honest one out west, John. He was talking about Jon Wilner, not you.
  21. https://www.on3.com/os/news/brett-yormark-id-be-a-little-disappointed-if-big-12-doesnt-add-two-teams-in-two-years/ Brett will be disappointed if the Big 12 isn't mathematically challenged in 2025. He wants at least 14.
  22. I think the part about the AAU is total bs. Otherwise, Big 10 schools wouldn't have been the votes that kicked NU out of the AAU. Had Wisconsin and Michigan voted for NU like all the Big 12 schools did, NU would still be AAU.
  23. No, it just burns it all off in Houston. Now 90 in Houston vs. 90 in Lubbock is very different.
  24. I think all those Michigan and Notre Dame fans moving down aren't changing their stripes. Arizona St.'s TV ratings are pretty mediocre. In the Sic-em analysis, guess who is just ahead of them at #46----Iowa St.
  25. I don't know about Iowa, but in Texas the heat burns off the humidity when it gets over 100. You can feel the heat and dryness when you hit over 100. Which is why I think FSU and Clemson are tops on their list and UW and Oregon are tops on the Big 10 list.
×
×
  • Create New...