Unsuprisingly: Also rumblings about Big 12 schools talking to Pac 12
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/3-big-12-schools-reportedly-reached-out-to-pac-12/ar-AAMuhev
This is becoming a frenzy.
I know it’s unlikely, but the BIG needs to ask ND what it would take for them to join. If that means adding USC, Navy, whoever, you try your best to get it done.
another option would be to get the PAC, BIG12, ACC together and merge to make an ncaa-lite. Cut the SEC out.
Pittsburgh and ND make sense if we’re talking academics, footprint etc.
OU and Texas are such jewels tho. It’s going to be hard to match that unfortunately. Insane given the rumblings of Texas to the Big 10 over the last decade.
UNC and UVA might be the best runner ups for the B10. Forget ISU and KU.
The B1G isn’t getting any of those schools. We sold our souls for Maryland and fucking Rutgers and sadly that is the best they can do. We are getting owned by the SEC on and off the field.
thanks Delaney.
Eh, so do you think Rutgers and Maryland ruined the conferences attractiveness to other schools? I don't think that's the case. The B1G landed Nebraska and Penn State before those two additions. It's still a richer conference than the ACC. The B1G needs to get over itself and use that advantage to land ND. Stop being stubborn and get it done.
If the Big Ten wasn’t such a firmly rooted conference, I’d be wondering if Michigan OSU and PSU shouldnt join the ACC. Id hate that, but I think that could make more sense than southern ACC schools joining us. At least the ACC has Pitt Cuse BC etc
Yes not exactly sexy pickups for the BIG when the SEC is adding Texas and OU especially when our last adds were Maryland and Rutgers. If the BIG is going to expand try to add a school that makes a splash although not sure there is anyone regionally anymore that does that
ND does not qualify academically. They are not in the AAU.
Neither is Nebraska.
Don't know what all the requirements are for AAU, but no way that would be a barrier to B1G taking them. They were happy to do so previously and nothing has changed. In fact, it makes even more sense now. Also Notre Dame is an elite academic institution.
I know the Big Ten likes to be hoity toity about AAU membership, but they're not going to turn away a great school like ND because of an arbitrary membership
I agree and would have to say ND's academics are better than a few schools already in the B1G.
Better than MOST schools in the B1G ten. Effectively on par with Michigan. It's an excellent school. Weird that it's not in the AAU. Not sure why.
This isn't about academics now. Now that kids can get paid over the table, it's about the on-field product and branding. ND is a brand name that kids still know. But it's also a brand name that needs a conference more than a conference needs them. If they're just going to get curb stomped in Indianapolis every year, then we really don't need them.
Right! Invite ND and THEN turn them down when they accept.
I've been done with ND as a conference and non-conference opponent. They barely want to play us now, so let's stop begging. They're clearly more happy racking up wins against Wake Forest and Georgia Tech while backing into the occasional playoff.
Isn't ND and the ACC a foregone conclusion at this point? I don't give a sh!t about ND anyway. Let them continue to stay independent until they don't have anymore options and hopefully overplay their hand and get screwed in the end. Excuse the pun.
ND in the Big Ten would be cool but they’re not so important that we need to give them sweetheart treatment. If they don’t want to be a regular member, that’s fine.
I don't think adding USC or Navy (??) was ever the issue. Notre Dame wants to stay independent in football in order to have flexiblilty over their schedule, and most importantly so they don't have to split their revenue with likes of Rutgers and Maryand.
Notre Dame went to the ACC because the ACC didnt require ND to share their football revenue with the rest of the conference and the ACC lets them schedule half of their games out of conference. The Big Ten would never allow either of those things.
With OU and Texas going to the SEC, ND is stuck playing Pac-12, B1G and ACC teams. There's no one left in the Big 12 that moves the CFP needle for them and SEC schedules are about to be crazy loaded with good teams. Basically, the SEC doesn't need to schedule ND ever again unless it's for kicks.
I suspect the top of the SEC would love scheduling Notre Dame because for them it's a fairly easy pre-conference win over a generally overrated / over-hyped team.
I also suspect ND wants nothing to do with the top half of the SEC because generally speaking it would expose them as being overrated / over-hyped.
Jmo.
Cheers.
That’s an interesting point. But here’s the thing: If the SEC keeps an 8-game conference schedule, why would their approach to scheduling Notre Dame change?
If OU and Texas join, presumably the SEC would realign. So even though you’d be adding them to an SEC West team’s schedule, you’d also be taking away East opponents—including potentially Alabama, which would geographically fit in the East. If you’re Texas A&M, is your schedule difficulty really changing at all if you add UT and OU as annual opponents but remove Bama and Auburn?
Different story if the SEC goes to 9 games, but they’ve been dead-set against that in the past.
That doesn't really matter for ND. They play USC and they'll play a hard enough ACC slate that they don't want better competition. They've been trying to make their schedule easier for years (hence dropping Michigan) so this is of no concern to them.
the BIG needs to ask ND what it would take for them to join
If they don't want to join they can pound sand. It's been 33 years since they won a national title. They're not that important.
They'd be the absolute perfect member. They bring a huge fanbase which ups the TV revenue substantially for all member schools, but they also aren't that good, so they're not too threatening competitively to the rest of the conference. Win-win.
ND joining the B1G makes sense, but they would be knocked off their preverbal pedestal. They would lose 2-3 in conference games a year. I suspect they would rather stomp on ACC teams and beat Clemson every 2 or 3 years. They are scared to join the B1G.
Not going to happen because the B1G is the biggest non-proactive approach conference period. Basically the Grandpa Simpson of organizations.
totally agree with this. B1G was stubborn and didn't take ND as a non-football member when they should have had the foresight to know ND would eventually need to join as a football member. Should try to get it done now. Probably won't happen though because they're too far along with the ACC.
College football has consolidated. The product is going to be as boring as an AMZN earnings call. Alabama, OSU, Clemson and UT/OU dominate - All hail the SEC.
This is a sad day for sports. Hope the players get paid while the product is still of value.
I agree with this... and I think that the NIL is going to eventually chew at the team concept and further exacerbate playing field indifferences, making this a shell of what college football used to be.
College football is an empty shell now.
But when the dust clears from the NCAA’s mismanagement of collegiate athletics and there’s nothing left of the pie to plunder or desecrate, the talking heads will make sure to loudly blame NIL as the only singular reason it all went to hell.
Next up, that mudbowl game will be televised somewhere and eventually exploited.
Texas isn't going to dominate shit in the SEC. Probably getting enough money so they won't care, but, IMO, there will easily be at least 6 teams who will be consistently better than them in football: Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, and LSU. I see A&M being their equal and then the SEC always has an Ole Miss or UK that gets good for a few years and beats one of the top teams.
Watching this mistake play out over the next few years will be fun.
This has as good of a chance as the BIG adding Iowa State. Zero chance the PAC is going to take on the religious schools especially Baylor. I have seen some "speculation" that the PAC could expand adding KSU, OSU, TT, and ISU and creating an east/west with colorado and the AZ schools going to the east. Prob not likely, but more likely than the PAC accepting Baylor and prob TCU.
This is stupid. College football will be a meaningless, traditionless minor league in about five years.
By taking the loss in the short term, the NCAA will rise from the ashes as the overlords of revenue-generating college sports, realigning schools into conferences bearing East and West, with subdivisions like metro and atlantic... all for the sake of crowing a champion.
“in about five years”??
I saw on twitter, Stewart Mandel brought up the point - does the Big Ten (and ACC, perhaps Pac-12) even need to expand? When I first saw the news, like many others I immediately thought "who could the big ten add" but in the modern streaming lifestyle, media markets are pretty much irrelevant, and who could you add that would top to bottom add value? Kansas basketball? Do you really want to bring on their joke football team and Division-1-bare-minimum 16 sports just to add one more basketball team to what is already the best league in America?
For the Pac-12, I think it would behoove them to add a few TX schools to fight against the coastal bias, but after maybe Baylor and TCU, do you need much more?
I remember a couple years ago the Pac-12 and Big Ten flirted with a scheduling alliance that could've circumvented the need for expansion, but IIRC it fell apart when the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers to go to 9 conference games. Perhaps the two leagues could revisit that with 14 schools each?
Thinking the same thing--what additional team to the BIG10 would increase the media rights value? Prob only Notre Dame or the big Pac12 schools like USC, UW.
In 20 years will "entering a market" even have much meaning, compared to actual eyeballs if everyone like YouTube TV like streaming?
At this point, I think you'd only expand if it increased your football value somehow either in talent or eyeballs. With OU/Texas gone, what would your options be? I guess Notre Dame. Pac 12 is too far to steal people. Who in the ACC has the enormous fanbases that would move the needle? Duke/UNC? Clemson? They're more likely to join the super-SEC than join with us yanks
The Pac-12 is opening up a can of worms if they take the left over Texas schools. You are just asking for a culture clash. The Pac12's emphasis on olympic sports is not going to go over well in football or nothing Texas. There would of been intense pressure to kick out Baylor with their sexual assault issue if they were in the Pac12. It is just a horrible fit. Kansas might work, but that is it.
I just don't see any of this happening...
1) Schools in Texas have no reason to not fight to the death to prevent this. Texas A&M will do everything they can to prevent Texas from joining the SEC from within and everyone else will be relocated to an inferior second tier...
2) Why would the SEC bring a redundant school into the fold? Oklahoma I would get, but they don't need to deal with Texas' shit. Plus how much more value would they bring in... I would argue not much since they are already the preeminent conference and have a school in Texas.
3) LSU and A&M have a distinct recruiting benefit leaving UT out.
4) Alleged handshake agreement within the SEC conference to keep out schools from within member states.
5) No one for the Pac to take so why take anyone?
The only thing I am taking out of this is UT realizes they are being left behind and that A&M is on a better footing than them and they are desperate.
I am assuming this is only leaking because it is a slam dunk but if A&M can get it vetoed maybe that is what pushes Texas and Oklahoma to the B1G
I feel reasonably confident at this point that Texas A&M has tried their damnedest to get this blocked and failed.
I do as well. If not, maybe they are interested in becoming the only Texas school in B1G?
I think Texas would be a better fit culturally but at the same time I think all that might be going out the window.
I went to see Michigan play Texas A&M when I was a kid in the late seventies; they were beaten badly (41-3, I think) but a couple of years later they tried to hire Bo away.
Don't want anything to do with Texas joining the B1G. They're way too poisonous no matter how bright and sunshiney they look on the surface.
Think that toxic ex-spouse, ex-girlfiend or ex boyfiend (wrong spelling intended) that most of us has either had or coveted at some point in our lifetimes.
Unless misery is your thing, don't touch that shit even with a ten-foot pole!
I don't think that's necessarily true. Look I lived in Texas for 12 years and of course UT is the traditional flagship program.
But as it stands in terms of both recruiting and coaching TAMU is way ahead of UT. If there was ever a time for them to establish themselves as the big swinging you know what in the state it's right now.
A second thought - UT is the Michigan in the equation and TAMU is the OSU - UT has all these "but we're primarily an outstanding academic institution" and TAMU is all in on football. UT has hang ups and never had anything like the bonfires, midnight yell, etc like A&M.
And people have recently been bringing up the fact that UM has the third largest endowment among public universities- UT might be first but A&M is a close second (oil money). The fan base is absolutely rabid. They have no illusions that they'll outpace UT academically- football is the one thing they might be able to hang their hats on.
OK I'm biased - went to A&M.
Cheers.
When it is all over - I hope there are like three teams left standing in the former big twelve who call themselves the Small Three.