Jump to content

gatormarc

Full Members
  • Posts

    943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gatormarc

  1. Wait... wouldn't they fly directly into Iowa City, Lafayette, etc?
  2. There is a notable difference though. The shortest flight for the LA schools to the current B1G is 3.5 hours to Nebraska. The longest flight for Texas to the current SEC is under 3 hours to Florida. And it's not just football you are handling for that, but all of the other sports too.
  3. Indie scheduling will also get tougher as conferences add more in-conference games.
  4. I recall Michigan got a special exception for UConn since they are an independent but I don't know about Maryland. It's a lot harder to find out the details on the Big10. They don't seem to host all of their rulebooks online like the SEC does. Also, yeah, I guess they dropped the requirement after a year.
  5. I guess the B1G dropping the P5 requirement is as good as done. Ohio State scheduled Marshall for 2024. That gives them Southern Miss, Western Michigan, and Marshall as OOC opponents for that season.
  6. The expectation is that the SEC will vote on the scheduling format in a few weeks at the Spring meetings in Destin. I could see the SEC dropping the P5 OOC requirement as well to get the last few stragglers on board (Kentucky and I think the Mississippi schools) with a 9 game conference schedule. I don't see it really affecting the top half of the league because the current belief among them is that with a 12 game playoff is that schedule is more important than perfection.
  7. With that innocent looking mustache, you'd never think Brett could be as spicy as he is.
  8. Sorry. At least in SEC circles, OUT is a portmanteau for OU and UT. I guess it's not common here.
  9. I wanted to edit above but ran out of time. I don't think we're really disagreeing here. I'm just pointing out that Ubben was right in that the Big12 outside of OUT has almost done the impossible of having the lesser programs grab a random 5 star or two over the years.
  10. I think we're discussing different points here. I'm referring to bullet's comment that the article is stupid because only 8 programs or so get anyone. I was pointing out that the only conference where that is the case is the Big 12. Every other conference is less extreme with relation to 5 stars (not blue chips, not draft picks). You seem to be agreeing with me because you recognize more than just 8 or so programs, but also the rest of the B1G/SEC.
  11. Does this mean we've all accepted the facts of the discussion since you've moved on to hypotheticals?
  12. There are no exceptions to fit the narrative. The fact is outside of OUT, only one 1 5 star has gone to a Big 12 school in that timeframe (1.5 if we want to give Houston partial credit) No other conference has that bad of a gap. Period. The next closest would be the ACC because only 4 (4.5 with Notre Dame) programs have pulled in 5 stars in the years I looked at. Now the clear argument against that is that Blue Chip ratio may be a more important stat to look at especially thanks to the transfer portal, but that's different than dismissing the 5 star gap.
  13. And here I thought we were talking about Ubben's article about how no one besides OUT was pulling in 5 stars in the Big 12.
  14. But that's not correct. If you look back more than one season, you see several non-top programs that have grabbed a 5 star or two. I looked back through 2015 (since that's all 247 is showing right now) and these arguably non-top programs all signed at least 1 5 star: Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss St, Iowa, Maryland, Northwestern, Purdue, North Carolina, Stanford, Cal During that time, I only found 1 non-OUT Big12 school that signed a 5 star. Baylor - 2015 2 if you count Houston in 2016. Yes, you are correct in that the power programs are mopping up most of the 5 stars, but it ignores his larger point that the ratio was among the worst of the major conferences in the Big 12. Compared to the SEC where Vanderbilt is the only SEC program that didn't sign a 5 star in the 9 classes I looked at.
  15. But 1 year of data is significantly different than 11 years of data. Seems odd to dismiss his 11 years collection based on 1 class. That said, I think a better judge is blue chip ratio rather than just 5 stars.
  16. That doesn't look right. There are usually 30-40 5 stars per year, not total over an 11 year period. Are you looking at just the 2023 recruiting class?
  17. Florida sponsored FSU for SEC member ship in 1959, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969, and 1970. They also sponsored Miami several of those years as well. It hit a brick wall because most of the SEC members had no desire to expand. Even after Georgia Tech and Tulane left, the SEC was at 10 teams, which was larger than all the other conferences and the SEC played a much smaller conference schedule. Tennessee was pushing Memphis State at the 12th and it wasn't an attractive combination. FSU continued to make their case in the 70s and 80s but the SEC actually voted to change its constitution in 1971 to limit membership to 10 members "permanently" shutting the doors to expansion. There was no blocking FSU those decades because the SEC wouldn't even consider expansion until Kramer basically figured out that they could apply some Division III rules to Division 1 and expand to 12 to get a conference championship game. I understand that Florida sponsored FSU and Miami for the 1992 expansion to 12 teams. https://www.nolefan.org/summary/fsu_sec.html
  18. I'm actually not sure where that came from. UF has sponsored FSU a bunch of times over the decades.
  19. I think South Carolina got the nod after FSU said no. I don't know if they were looking 1 East/1 West or if they were just working down the list (and we could have had Arky/Texas).
  20. Solid source. When I think of two schools that have their fingers on the pulse of midwest athletics and how it will be impacted by west coast athletics, I think Maryland and Rutgers.
  21. He's not talking about competing. He's talking about gaining entry. OK... I was reading it as the "haves" being Ohio State, Penn State, etc. since he's talking about brand power right in that same statement. Northwesern is not a "have" if you are talking brand power as he's talking about improving by staying in the PacX Northwestern is a "have" in that they are in P2 as he's also talking about getting an invitation to the BigY So both of us appear to be right since he's defined it both ways.
  22. I think he's suggesting that they could be better able to compete once they join the B10 if they wait. Yes, there are a ton of flaws with that thought process but there is a distinction.
  23. I think they try to re-balance it every year. I know UF has played against most of the conference. I think Texas/Tennessee may be a recency bias thing since they have played the last 2 seasons. Kansas/Kentucky has happened a lot though, for sure. Do you mean all 3/4 OOC games for each team are locked into a partner conference? If yes to the above, then yes. If you mean a locked in P5 opponent, this is a great example as this only works if it's an additional game on top of the existing rivalries. Which is hard to force as it would be an uneven requirement. While I think UF-FSU, UGA-GT, and USC-Clem is safe, I could see Kentucky saying that "<random ACC team> fills the Louisville gap" which is a net loss most years. If it was a one or two season thing, maybe. If it became a yearly challenge, then I would think you would have to incorporate the existing rivalries in which would mean most of the value of the deal already exists and is it worth it? Plus, this is all blue skying here and would be tough to do short term -- which is when the ACC/ESPN would need it for stability. If we go to 9 conference games, UF is already going to have to cut an OOC game in 2024, 2025, 2026. Then again, UF is playing 2 ACC teams each those years, so I guess it could just be rolled in which is great but it doesn't help improve ACC stability more than it is today and it doesn't bring ESPN extra money.
×
×
  • Create New...