Reports B1G is back in Convos with Oregon & Washington

TheInsider said:
Agreed. This is why it doesn't make sense for the Big Ten and SEC to create their own division. They can still make record money while keeping the ACC, Big 12 and PAC around. As you stated, a lot of fans from around the nation will stop watching college football if their teams become the new FCS. I think the Big Ten and SEC understand this.

This isn't about turning back the clock, it's about not killing off a good thing. If you try to turn college football into the NFL, casual fans will tune out and just watch the NFL.
Click to expand...
This^
 
TheInsider said:
Agreed. This is why it doesn't make sense for the Big Ten and SEC to create their own division. They can still make record money while keeping the ACC, Big 12 and PAC around.
Click to expand...
They would still play them, but part of the problem is the parity and that 75% (probably more) doesn't have a legitimate shot at a championship anymore. I think it would be nice to have different levels and allow for more national titles. I have always been for the G5 doing this. I think it is sacrilege to the sport to have teams (such as the G5) who will NEVER have a chance at a championship. This is essentially the same, but expanded a bit. I'm also not against teams eventually moving up or down either.
TheInsider said:
As you stated, a lot of fans from around the nation will stop watching college football if their teams become the new FCS. I think the Big Ten and SEC understand this.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree. I think after some time, fans would appreciate it more.
TheInsider said:
This isn't about turning back the clock, it's about not killing off a good thing. If you try to turn college football into the NFL, casual fans will tune out and just watch the NFL.
Click to expand...
But the point is that it is already being killed off, that's why it would be better to split unless we have a reasonable change to the sport as far as recruiting goes to allow for parity.

I mean look at the sport since 2000.

NCs **per NCAA recognition**
SEC14
B1G2
ACC4
Big122
PAC2

And if you move OU and Texas to the SEC and count them there, then the SEC has 16 and the Big12 has 0. The B1G is just fortunate to have major fanbases that watch, sell/buy, and travel. That isn't meant to sound like a diss to the other teams or conferences, just a statement of fact. And I'm sure you know this stuff, but it matters. The parity is a big problem. Personally, I think a lot should change and would love to talk about other aspects, but that might be better for a different thread... but I am totally willing to get into that lol.

But as you can see that is more than a simple ebb and flow like it used to be. Plus with the addition of the NIL, the difference between the haves and have-nots is likely to grow over time. I also disagree with people tuning out to just watch the NFL. Fan bases are much more committed and rabid (in my experience) for CFB than the NFL.
 
Blackshrits Blvd said:
They would still play them, but part of the problem is the parity and that 75% (probably more) doesn't have a legitimate shot at a championship anymore. I think it would be nice to have different levels and allow for more national titles. I have always been for the G5 doing this. I think it is sacrilege to the sport to have teams (such as the G5) who will NEVER have a chance at a championship. This is essentially the same, but expanded a bit. I'm also not against teams eventually moving up or down either.

Agree to disagree. I think after some time, fans would appreciate it more.

But the point is that it is already being killed off, that's why it would be better to split unless we have a reasonable change to the sport as far as recruiting goes to allow for parity.

I mean look at the sport since 2000.

NCs **per NCAA recognition**
SEC14
B1G2
ACC4
Big122
PAC2

And if you move OU and Texas to the SEC and count them there, then the SEC has 16 and the Big12 has 0. The B1G is just fortunate to have major fanbases that watch, sell/buy, and travel. That isn't meant to sound like a diss to the other teams or conferences, just a statement of fact. And I'm sure you know this stuff, but it matters. The parity is a big problem. Personally, I think a lot should change and would love to talk about other aspects, but that might be better for a different thread... but I am totally willing to get into that lol.

But as you can see that is more than a simple ebb and flow like it used to be. Plus with the addition of the NIL, the difference between the haves and have-nots is likely to grow over time. I also disagree with people tuning out to just watch the NFL. Fan bases are much more committed and rabid (in my experience) for CFB than the NFL.
Click to expand...

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with the second sentences I bolded, that's why I strongly oppose moving over the half the P5 to second tier status. Those fans may not stop watching their own teams but they will absolutely stop worrying about what's happening in the SEC and Big Ten. There's a reason conference and playoff expansion always involves adding more teams into the fold and not less. You have to continue to grow your audience, not shrink it.
 
TheInsider said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with the second sentences I bolded, that's why I strongly oppose moving over the half the P5 to second tier status. Those fans may not stop watching their own teams but they will absolutely stop worrying about what's happening in the SEC and Big Ten. There's a reason conference and playoff expansion always involves adding more teams into the fold and not less. You have to continue to grow your audience, not shrink it.
Click to expand...
exactly -
 
Blackshrits Blvd said:
They would still play them, but part of the problem is the parity and that 75% (probably more) doesn't have a legitimate shot at a championship anymore. I think it would be nice to have different levels and allow for more national titles. I have always been for the G5 doing this. I think it is sacrilege to the sport to have teams (such as the G5) who will NEVER have a chance at a championship. This is essentially the same, but expanded a bit. I'm also not against teams eventually moving up or down either.

Agree to disagree. I think after some time, fans would appreciate it more.

But the point is that it is already being killed off, that's why it would be better to split unless we have a reasonable change to the sport as far as recruiting goes to allow for parity.

I mean look at the sport since 2000.

NCs **per NCAA recognition**
SEC14
B1G2
ACC4
Big122
PAC2

And if you move OU and Texas to the SEC and count them there, then the SEC has 16 and the Big12 has 0. The B1G is just fortunate to have major fanbases that watch, sell/buy, and travel. That isn't meant to sound like a diss to the other teams or conferences, just a statement of fact. And I'm sure you know this stuff, but it matters. The parity is a big problem. Personally, I think a lot should change and would love to talk about other aspects, but that might be better for a different thread... but I am totally willing to get into that lol.

But as you can see that is more than a simple ebb and flow like it used to be. Plus with the addition of the NIL, the difference between the haves and have-nots is likely to grow over time. I also disagree with people tuning out to just watch the NFL. Fan bases are much more committed and rabid (in my experience) for CFB than the NFL.
Click to expand...
TechRaiderRider said:
based on this argument,
it should just be the SEC that splits off -
Click to expand...

If you want to take the time to read this article, it pretty much explains everything.

bleacherreport.com

College Football: The Pride and Joy of the South

Given the recent success of the Southeastern Conference, it’s easy to mistake the South’s obsession with college football as a trend of convenience or a byproduct of the conference's unprecedented success on the field...
bleacherreport.com bleacherreport.com
 
Here's something that I've heard from two different people in PAC circles. USC and UCLA are trying to get the Big Ten to add 4 schools from the Pacific Time Zone. I would assume they are talking about Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington.

From my discussions with folks in the know in the Big Ten, I don't think they have the appetite for another 4 schools. Interesting nonetheless.
 
TheInsider said:
Here's something that I've heard from two different people in PAC circles. USC and UCLA are trying to get the Big Ten to add 4 schools from the Pacific Time Zone. I would assume they are talking about Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington.

From my discussions with folks in the know in the Big Ten, I don't think they have the appetite for another 4 schools. Interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Stanford is probably the most likely candidate if I had to guess. Their attendance sucks but they've won the Davis Cup just about every year since it first came out. That and their academics is second to none.
 
AlaskaGuy said:
Stanford is probably the most likely candidate if I had to guess. Their attendance sucks but they've won the Davis Cup just about every year since it first came out. That and their academics is second to none.
Click to expand...

I could see a scenario where Stanford is added because of the reasons outlined. I just don't see a justification for Cal. They obviously have a great academic profile but their athletic program value is nowhere close to what the Big Ten needs to justifying expansion. On top of that, if you bring in Stanford, you already brought in the Bay Area market.

Notre Dame, Stanford, Oregon and Washington would make a lot of sense but I don't think ND is budging anytime soon (just a hunch, no intel).
 
TheInsider said:
I could see a scenario where Stanford is added because of the reasons outlined. I just don't see a justification for Cal. They obviously have a great academic profile but their athletic program value is nowhere close to what the Big Ten needs to justifying expansion. On top of that, if you bring in Stanford, you already brought in the Bay Area market.

Notre Dame, Stanford, Oregon and Washington would make a lot of sense but I don't think ND is budging anytime soon (just a hunch, no intel).
Click to expand...
That would make the most sense. USC and Stanford play ND every year.
 
TheInsider said:
Here's something that I've heard from two different people in PAC circles. USC and UCLA are trying to get the Big Ten to add 4 schools from the Pacific Time Zone. I would assume they are talking about Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington.

From my discussions with folks in the know in the Big Ten, I don't think they have the appetite for another 4 schools. Interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I brought this up to my friend over Easter (He's highly involved in a major Big Ten school's AD) and he had some thoughts:

- He said USC and UCLA may want this but he doesn't think the market will allow for expansion up to 20.
- There's a growing consensus that more western teams are needed because nobody wants a permanent rival with a west coast school. If the Big Ten can add UO/UW without decreasing anyone else's payout, it's very likely to happen. However, there are still a couple of schools that prefer to stay at 16.
- If the market allows the Big Ten to get to 20, he wouldn't assume that Stanford and Cal are 19 and 20. He said there's a lot more interest in Utah than what's being reported/rumored. Unlikely to happen this summer but if they do go to 20, watch for this.

He's not connected with the Big 12 and PAC 12 but he did say to watch for a couple of things:
- PAC isn't seriously negotiating with anyone. PAC is in a holding patter until they know what members they actually have in the fold. They won't get clarity until after the Big Ten makes their decision, which is why the industry is reporting the PAC won't sign a deal until the summer. They can't sign a deal until they know who's going to be in the PAC.
- Colorado and Zona talks to the Big 12 are heating up. He's unsure if they're going to wait for UO or UW to make a decision but said he does think they will make a jump to the Big 12 if they get tipped off that UO/UW are leaving. He strongly believes those are the two schools with the most interest in the Big 12. However, Zona and ASU may prefer to make the move together and ASU seems more committed to the PAC at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top