|
Post by slxpress on Sept 4, 2023 21:24:26 GMT -5
Which is all well and good but it is a very, very minor reason for conference realignment choices if it plays any bearing at all. That includes the voting rationale of that school from northwest Indiana. How do you know it's a very minor reason? Ppl (and schools) value different things. Just bc it would be minor for you or for most schools doesn't mean it's very, very minor for Stanford, Cal, or Notre Dame.
No one is suggesting that it's the sole or primary reason. But I think that for Stanford and Cal, it's moderately important. I can see it being moderately important for Notre Dame. Swarbrick seems idealistic and Notre Dame also seems to value things like community and academics.
Just to echo this, our current discussion thread started because a poster said academics had zero to do with it, and I replied it didn't have zero. It just wasn't the driving factor.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Sept 4, 2023 21:28:46 GMT -5
Yes, it's quaint but academics are still important to Stanford and Cal. It seems like they're important to Notre Dame. I'm pretty sure they're important to most of the Ivy League. If you look at college sports only from the money angle, it makes 0 sense. But Stanford has resisted doing that for decades and I don't see that changing with a new president or provost. IMO it's one reason Stanford and Cal were so slow to react to NIL and USC/UCLA leaving. Stanford really prizes the student athlete model. They're worried about athletes becoming employees, pay for play, diversity (giving preferences to athletes makes it harder for them to reach their diversity goals), and women's sports being underfunded in the NIL and big $$ football era. Which is all well and good but it is a very, very minor reason for conference realignment choices if it plays any bearing at all. That includes the voting rationale of that school from northwest Indiana. Sorry for the second reply but I don't understand this. Why do you think that e.g., Penn State's reasons for doing something would be similar to Stanford's, much less exactly the same?
Very few large state schools need to worry about how athletics affects diversity (tho some like Cal do). Very few need to be concerned that giving preferences to athletes will make it too hard for other very qualified applicants to be admitted or have large donors who feel strongly that's the case. Very few need to worry that allowing transfer students/athletes will freeze out extremely qualified high school applicants. They accept a large percentage of their applicants. (Not saying that is good or bad; having a mission to educate all the citizens of a state is laudable and having a mission to provide one of the best educations in the world is too. But they are very different goals so the schools are likely to have different concerns and priorities.) On the other hand, many state schools, esp those that aren't flagships, need to try to attract more applicants and get more donor money (for athletics and academics). Athletics can help with that so it makes sense to support and emphasize athletics. Stanford admits 4% of the ppl who apply. Is admitting only 3% going to help them? Some state schools (like Cal but there are others) need to attract out of state students, so they need to have both sports and excellent academics.
Stanford is a small private school in an area with a lot of pro sports (and other colleges/universities). It will probably always struggle to fill its stadium or get as many eyeballs as large state schools, esp flagships in areas with few pro sports. OTOH, it has a lot of rich donors so it won't struggle with money as much as some other schools.
Schools are quite different so why do you think they all value the academics of other schools similarly?
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Sept 4, 2023 21:36:32 GMT -5
It's been confirmed the vote was 12-3; NC State was the institution that switched from the 11-4 straw vote. After all has been said and done this was the final, only remaining chance for the two Pac-4 schools to end up in a P5 conference. They now have time/breathing room to see what may change in a few years as far as further restructuring goes: even reverting back to rejoin a more-Western U.S. conference? Who knows? But for now, the final dominos have fallen into place...at least for a few years, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by jagdpanther on Sept 5, 2023 19:57:02 GMT -5
Which is all well and good but it is a very, very minor reason for conference realignment choices if it plays any bearing at all. That includes the voting rationale of that school from northwest Indiana. Sorry for the second reply but I don't understand this. Why do you think that e.g., Penn State's reasons for doing something would be similar to Stanford's, much less exactly the same? Very few large state schools need to worry about how athletics affects diversity (tho some like Cal do). Very few need to be concerned that giving preferences to athletes will make it too hard for other very qualified applicants to be admitted or have large donors who feel strongly that's the case. Very few need to worry that allowing transfer students/athletes will freeze out extremely qualified high school applicants. They accept a large percentage of their applicants. (Not saying that is good or bad; having a mission to educate all the citizens of a state is laudable and having a mission to provide one of the best educations in the world is too. But they are very different goals so the schools are likely to have different concerns and priorities.) On the other hand, many state schools, esp those that aren't flagships, need to try to attract more applicants and get more donor money (for athletics and academics). Athletics can help with that so it makes sense to support and emphasize athletics. Stanford admits 4% of the ppl who apply. Is admitting only 3% going to help them? Some state schools (like Cal but there are others) need to attract out of state students, so they need to have both sports and excellent academics.
Stanford is a small private school in an area with a lot of pro sports (and other colleges/universities). It will probably always struggle to fill its stadium or get as many eyeballs as large state schools, esp flagships in areas with few pro sports. OTOH, it has a lot of rich donors so it won't struggle with money as much as some other schools.
Schools are quite different so why do you think they all value the academics of other schools similarly?
We're talking about conference realignment, not individual schools. No one, including me, is saying schools like Stanford and Cal don't value academics. They absolutely do. But in the game of Conference Musical Chairs, academics don't mean squat. Stanford and Cal are going on the cheap to the ACC because that's all they were considered worth. The ACC has some good academic institutions, but the ACC is hardly known for its academics. Why would the Big Ten, arguably the strongest conference overall in terms of academic prowess of its member institutions, not be more enamored with those schools? Their academics are nice to think about, but ultimately they don't really do anything for the conference's value. That's why teams like Oregon and Washington got invited while Stanford and Cal did not. That school in Indiana is desperately clinging to its athletic history. It's not chasing a like-minded group of intellectuals to play with every season. It's hoping against hope it can continue to duck the trials conference-dwelling foes need to take on every year (harder overall schedules and conference championship games). In some respects, it's not a bad idea; if they wait to the right moment they can get a king's ransom for which conference takes them in. But, if they wait too long they'll F themselves over and be out in the cold while (likely) the Big Ten and SEC determine the future of college football (add in the Big XII for men's basketball). For non-rev sports, they can continue to be aligned however they want because non-rev sports just don't drive anything.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 5, 2023 20:09:56 GMT -5
That school in Indiana is desperately clinging to its athletic history. It's not chasing a like-minded group of intellectuals to play with every season. Um what? There is nothing "desperate" about the Notre Dame athletic department. They spent one season in a football conference, and qualified for the College Football Playoff. Notre Dame will be accepted into the Big Ten whenever they want. The SEC makes sure they have CFP access so they don't join the Big Ten. The 2020 college football season was going to be cancelled until Notre Dame wanted to play and told the ACC they'd be conference members for a season. The ACC had a season so they could play with the Irish. Then the Big Ten decided to play to not get left out. Notre Dame might still be the single most powerful athletic department in the country. They are far from desperate.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Sept 5, 2023 20:13:06 GMT -5
Sorry for the second reply but I don't understand this. Why do you think that e.g., Penn State's reasons for doing something would be similar to Stanford's, much less exactly the same? Very few large state schools need to worry about how athletics affects diversity (tho some like Cal do). Very few need to be concerned that giving preferences to athletes will make it too hard for other very qualified applicants to be admitted or have large donors who feel strongly that's the case. Very few need to worry that allowing transfer students/athletes will freeze out extremely qualified high school applicants. They accept a large percentage of their applicants. (Not saying that is good or bad; having a mission to educate all the citizens of a state is laudable and having a mission to provide one of the best educations in the world is too. But they are very different goals so the schools are likely to have different concerns and priorities.) On the other hand, many state schools, esp those that aren't flagships, need to try to attract more applicants and get more donor money (for athletics and academics). Athletics can help with that so it makes sense to support and emphasize athletics. Stanford admits 4% of the ppl who apply. Is admitting only 3% going to help them? Some state schools (like Cal but there are others) need to attract out of state students, so they need to have both sports and excellent academics.
Stanford is a small private school in an area with a lot of pro sports (and other colleges/universities). It will probably always struggle to fill its stadium or get as many eyeballs as large state schools, esp flagships in areas with few pro sports. OTOH, it has a lot of rich donors so it won't struggle with money as much as some other schools.
Schools are quite different so why do you think they all value the academics of other schools similarly?
We're talking about conference realignment, not individual schools. No one, including me, is saying schools like Stanford and Cal don't value academics. They absolutely do. But in the game of Conference Musical Chairs, academics don't mean squat. Stanford and Cal are going on the cheap to the ACC because that's all they were considered worth. The ACC has some good academic institutions, but the ACC is hardly known for its academics. Why would the Big Ten, arguably the strongest conference overall in terms of academic prowess of its member institutions, not be more enamored with those schools? Their academics are nice to think about, but ultimately they don't really do anything for the conference's value. That's why teams like Oregon and Washington got invited while Stanford and Cal did not. That school in Indiana is desperately clinging to its athletic history. It's not chasing a like-minded group of intellectuals to play with every season. It's hoping against hope it can continue to duck the trials conference-dwelling foes need to take on every year (harder overall schedules and conference championship games). In some respects, it's not a bad idea; if they wait to the right moment they can get a king's ransom for which conference takes them in. But, if they wait too long they'll F themselves over and be out in the cold while (likely) the Big Ten and SEC determine the future of college football (add in the Big XII for men's basketball). For non-rev sports, they can continue to be aligned however they want because non-rev sports just don't drive anything. But individual schools decide which conferences to join. Individual schools vote on whether to add new members.
I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing to some schools when they decide which conferences they'd like to join. I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing when some schools vote on who to add to their conference. I think if Stanford and Cal had been worth almost $30M/year to FOX, some of the B1G presidents would have been willing to take a slight haircut in order to add them because of their academic prestige (and maybe working together to get research $$$ more often than now).
You may not understand how Stanford's concern with how sports affects diversity, how the transfer portal may affect Stanford admissions, or how some of their donor's concerns about athletes freezing out too many other applicants affect the desirability of various conferences but they do.
Maybe the school you root for doesn't rely on donations to the extent that Notre Dame and Stanford do. It may not make sense but many donors want their school to be associated with other elite universities. It's a matter of pride, which is emotional but AFAICS, almost all school ties are emotional.
I also agree that Notre Dame could join the B1G or the ACC whenever they wanted. Probably the SEC too, tho the B1G is probably a better fit.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Sept 5, 2023 20:26:41 GMT -5
Sorry for the second reply but I don't understand this. Why do you think that e.g., Penn State's reasons for doing something would be similar to Stanford's, much less exactly the same? Very few large state schools need to worry about how athletics affects diversity (tho some like Cal do). Very few need to be concerned that giving preferences to athletes will make it too hard for other very qualified applicants to be admitted or have large donors who feel strongly that's the case. Very few need to worry that allowing transfer students/athletes will freeze out extremely qualified high school applicants. They accept a large percentage of their applicants. (Not saying that is good or bad; having a mission to educate all the citizens of a state is laudable and having a mission to provide one of the best educations in the world is too. But they are very different goals so the schools are likely to have different concerns and priorities.) On the other hand, many state schools, esp those that aren't flagships, need to try to attract more applicants and get more donor money (for athletics and academics). Athletics can help with that so it makes sense to support and emphasize athletics. Stanford admits 4% of the ppl who apply. Is admitting only 3% going to help them? Some state schools (like Cal but there are others) need to attract out of state students, so they need to have both sports and excellent academics.
Stanford is a small private school in an area with a lot of pro sports (and other colleges/universities). It will probably always struggle to fill its stadium or get as many eyeballs as large state schools, esp flagships in areas with few pro sports. OTOH, it has a lot of rich donors so it won't struggle with money as much as some other schools.
Schools are quite different so why do you think they all value the academics of other schools similarly?
We're talking about conference realignment, not individual schools. No one, including me, is saying schools like Stanford and Cal don't value academics. They absolutely do. But in the game of Conference Musical Chairs, academics don't mean squat. Stanford and Cal are going on the cheap to the ACC because that's all they were considered worth. The ACC has some good academic institutions, but the ACC is hardly known for its academics. Why would the Big Ten, arguably the strongest conference overall in terms of academic prowess of its member institutions, not be more enamored with those schools? Their academics are nice to think about, but ultimately they don't really do anything for the conference's value. That's why teams like Oregon and Washington got invited while Stanford and Cal did not. That school in Indiana is desperately clinging to its athletic history. It's not chasing a like-minded group of intellectuals to play with every season. It's hoping against hope it can continue to duck the trials conference-dwelling foes need to take on every year (harder overall schedules and conference championship games). In some respects, it's not a bad idea; if they wait to the right moment they can get a king's ransom for which conference takes them in. But, if they wait too long they'll F themselves over and be out in the cold while (likely) the Big Ten and SEC determine the future of college football (add in the Big XII for men's basketball). For non-rev sports, they can continue to be aligned however they want because non-rev sports just don't drive anything. This deal got done not because the ADs wanted it. Condi Rice and Jerry Yang got the University Presidents on side. They wanted to be associated with schools like Stanford & cal. The ADs could care less. The money got them over the finish line but this deal never happens if Stanford doesn't sell it to the Presidents.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 6, 2023 0:41:32 GMT -5
No one, including me, is saying schools like Stanford and Cal don't value academics. They absolutely do. But in the game of Conference Musical Chairs, academics don't mean squat. Stanford and Cal are going on the cheap to the ACC because that's all they were considered worth. The ACC has some good academic institutions, but the ACC is hardly known for its academics. Why would the Big Ten, arguably the strongest conference overall in terms of academic prowess of its member institutions, not be more enamored with those schools? Their academics are nice to think about, but ultimately they don't really do anything for the conference's value. That's why teams like Oregon and Washington got invited while Stanford and Cal did not. The PAC-12 was pretty clearly at least as high, and probably higher, than the Big 10 in academics, but that doesn't seem to have helped them survive as a conference. This consolidation of the "power" conferences has *nothing* to do with academics. Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jagdpanther on Sept 6, 2023 21:23:48 GMT -5
But individual schools decide which conferences to join. Individual schools vote on whether to add new members.
I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing to some schools when they decide which conferences they'd like to join. I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing when some schools vote on who to add to their conference. I think if Stanford and Cal had been worth almost $30M/year to FOX, some of the B1G presidents would have been willing to take a slight haircut in order to add them because of their academic prestige (and maybe working together to get research $$$ more often than now).
You may not understand how Stanford's concern with how sports affects diversity, how the transfer portal may affect Stanford admissions, or how some of their donor's concerns about athletes freezing out too many other applicants affect the desirability of various conferences but they do. Maybe the school you root for doesn't rely on donations to the extent that Notre Dame and Stanford do. It may not make sense but many donors want their school to be associated with other elite universities. It's a matter of pride, which is emotional but AFAICS, almost all school ties are emotional.
I also agree that Notre Dame could join the B1G or the ACC whenever they wanted. Probably the SEC too, tho the B1G is probably a better fit.
A school can't say tomorrow, "We're unilaterally joining Conference X." That conference has to invite them. And the conference has to see value in those schools to extend such an offer. The Big Ten and the SEC are far and away the most powerful and well-founded conferences right now. The Big XII has made some interesting and solid moves to maintain relevance to a degree in football (but more so in basketball). The Pac-12 is obviously headed toward its vicious death at the end of this academic year. Of the so-called P5, that leaves the ACC. The ACC is largely considered to be headed toward its own demise, as well, but much more slowly. No one else wanted the schools they took. They took them in part to try to buy their way out of an earlier death if, in fact, FSU, Clemson, and UNC find a way to kill the GOR (which they very well may). They didn't take them because they enamored with Stanford or Cal academics (and let's not forget this is actually a 3-school deal; SMU is in here, too). The ACC is riverboat gambling with its life. If FSU, Clemson, and UNC can overcome to GOR, the ACC can maybe survive as a much lesser conference with who they have left. If they didn't add these teams, they'd likely be headed down the road of the Pac-12 much more quickly than they'd hoped.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Sept 7, 2023 11:16:09 GMT -5
Interesting article about SMU's pursuit of joining the P5:
"[After the death penalty] we didn’t know how hard it was going to be for the university to bounce back. It took 30-plus years. The climb first began academically. In his 27th year as school president, Gerald Turner oversees a university bursting with academic success. Student applications have tripled under his leadership, and a bevy of on-campus buildings have either been renovated or rebuilt.
SMU, a top-75 institution in the U.S. News rankings, is on the cusp of attaining the prestigious status as a Research 1 (R1) school.
But one of Turner’s greatest gifts is cultivating the school’s league of wealthy donors. . . .
“The ACC was not our original intention,” said Turner, the school president. “The Pac-12 was moving a lot quicker.”
Roughly a year before Miller’s [chairman of SMU's board of trustees] expedition began, university leaders created what they called the Athletic Task Force, a group of about 12-15 influential, high-level donors with a mission of finding the Mustangs a new home. Amid a wave of conference realignment moves, a sense of urgency grew, much of it sparked by the Big 12’s decision to pass on SMU in 2021, instead adding UCF, BYU, Cincinnati and, the one that most boiled blood in Dallas, the University of Houston. . . .
Miller flew to at least 20 different cities, including Los Angeles, Charlotte, Scottsdale, Winston-Salem, New York, Charlottesville, Seattle and Miami. . . .
Conference television packages range drastically in value — a reason for the latest realignment as programs jockey to join leagues with the richest TV deals. Over the next five years, SEC and Big Ten schools are expected to reach $70 million in annual distribution. ACC and Big 12 schools are projected around $40-45 million.
There is a significant dropoff to the ranks of the Group of Five. Last year, SMU received $9 million in total conference distribution from the American Athletic Conference, about 80% from the television deal.
Through the course of negotiations with the ACC, the school committed to accepting no conference television revenue in its first nine years in the ACC.
While SMU will not receive the largest portion of the distribution — TV money — the Mustangs get everything else. Administrators expect to receive about 25% of an ACC distribution share, or roughly $10-12 million annually in cash from NCAA tournament, bowl games, the CFP and the conference’s new incentive-success pool. That still leaves a gap of $30 million annually between the Mustangs and the original 14 ACC programs — a whopping difference that could impact resources such as coaching salaries, recruiting budgets, staff size, etc.
That’s where the millionaire and billionaire boosters enter the picture. Completely closing the gap isn’t necessary, Turner said. But he did not rule it out. “We have nine or 10 of them who will unanimously go after it,” Turner said. “That allowed us to do this.” . . . .
Not only did SMU’s addition bring the additional revenue from the TV shares, the Dallas market and a strong fit as a private, academic institution, the school introduced an interesting travel concept. In conversations between Turner and Stanford ambassador Condoleezza Rice, the SMU president presented a plan for the two West Coast schools and the original ACC schools to meet in Dallas to hold Olympic sports competition at SMU’s venues.
In the future, Turner hopes to even broaden the plan to incorporate other events. . . .
Days before the vote, Miller made one last phone call to an important person at NC State, seen as the potential swing vote. He phoned the school’s board chairman, Ed Weisiger.
This wasn’t the first time the two talked. About a month prior, around the time of the straw poll, Miller and Weisiger spoke in a conversation that produced surprising news: Weisiger and NC State had not, at that point, been made aware of SMU’s financial proposal from the league office. “On the second call, he didn’t say they would flip,” Miller said, “but they were aware of the financial arrangement and it was compelling.”
ETA: Another article about SMU's finances SMU came back from the dead to join the ACC, and the Mustangs’ dreams don’t stop there
SMU won’t take any Tier 1 media rights revenue from the ACC for nine years, according to sources familiar with the arrangement. The school will still receive other distributions like College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament money, but it’s an unprecedented sacrifice. To make up for the vast difference with other ACC schools, SMU’s boosters plan to contribute well north of $150 million over that period, they say. They don’t plan to be a doormat. In taking this deal, no school has ever bet on itself this much. But ambition and money have never been in short supply on the Hilltop. . . .
The boosters who have already donated hundreds of millions to the school have promised more. One familiar with their plans said that number could total upwards of $150 million to make up the difference with other ACC schools, but Miller said, “I think the number is substantially higher than that. You can do the math.”
That math makes for around a $25-30 million per year difference. Local entrepreneur Rogers Healy, another SMU supporter, said, “SMU has enough boosters to make up for that in a couple of hours.” It’s a key reason SMU was selected over other Group of 5 schools that would come in at a substantial financial disadvantage. SMU collectives say they provide $36,000 each to football and men’s basketball players, which laps the G5 competition. That also came up with commissioners, Miller said.
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Sept 7, 2023 11:23:02 GMT -5
But individual schools decide which conferences to join. Individual schools vote on whether to add new members.
I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing to some schools when they decide which conferences they'd like to join. I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing when some schools vote on who to add to their conference. I think if Stanford and Cal had been worth almost $30M/year to FOX, some of the B1G presidents would have been willing to take a slight haircut in order to add them because of their academic prestige (and maybe working together to get research $$$ more often than now).
You may not understand how Stanford's concern with how sports affects diversity, how the transfer portal may affect Stanford admissions, or how some of their donor's concerns about athletes freezing out too many other applicants affect the desirability of various conferences but they do. Maybe the school you root for doesn't rely on donations to the extent that Notre Dame and Stanford do. It may not make sense but many donors want their school to be associated with other elite universities. It's a matter of pride, which is emotional but AFAICS, almost all school ties are emotional.
I also agree that Notre Dame could join the B1G or the ACC whenever they wanted. Probably the SEC too, tho the B1G is probably a better fit.
A school can't say tomorrow, "We're unilaterally joining Conference X." That conference has to invite them. And the conference has to see value in those schools to extend such an offer. The Big Ten and the SEC are far and away the most powerful and well-founded conferences right now. The Big XII has made some interesting and solid moves to maintain relevance to a degree in football (but more so in basketball). The Pac-12 is obviously headed toward its vicious death at the end of this academic year. Of the so-called P5, that leaves the ACC. The ACC is largely considered to be headed toward its own demise, as well, but much more slowly. No one else wanted the schools they took. They took them in part to try to buy their way out of an earlier death if, in fact, FSU, Clemson, and UNC find a way to kill the GOR (which they very well may). They didn't take them because they enamored with Stanford or Cal academics (and let's not forget this is actually a 3-school deal; SMU is in here, too). The ACC is riverboat gambling with its life. If FSU, Clemson, and UNC can overcome to GOR, the ACC can maybe survive as a much lesser conference with who they have left. If they didn't add these teams, they'd likely be headed down the road of the Pac-12 much more quickly than they'd hoped. It seems that you and baytree are hashing and rehashing an argument where you are BOTH correct. And yet both views are incomplete. Like two sides of the same coin that *are not* mutually exclusive. So maybe look at this and see that academic concerns/prominence and greed went hand-in-hand here.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Sept 7, 2023 11:35:17 GMT -5
But individual schools decide which conferences to join. Individual schools vote on whether to add new members.
I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing to some schools when they decide which conferences they'd like to join. I completely disagree that academics mean absolutely nothing when some schools vote on who to add to their conference. I think if Stanford and Cal had been worth almost $30M/year to FOX, some of the B1G presidents would have been willing to take a slight haircut in order to add them because of their academic prestige (and maybe working together to get research $$$ more often than now).
You may not understand how Stanford's concern with how sports affects diversity, how the transfer portal may affect Stanford admissions, or how some of their donor's concerns about athletes freezing out too many other applicants affect the desirability of various conferences but they do. Maybe the school you root for doesn't rely on donations to the extent that Notre Dame and Stanford do. It may not make sense but many donors want their school to be associated with other elite universities. It's a matter of pride, which is emotional but AFAICS, almost all school ties are emotional.
I also agree that Notre Dame could join the B1G or the ACC whenever they wanted. Probably the SEC too, tho the B1G is probably a better fit.
A school can't say tomorrow, "We're unilaterally joining Conference X." That conference has to invite them. And the conference has to see value in those schools to extend such an offer. The Big Ten and the SEC are far and away the most powerful and well-founded conferences right now. The Big XII has made some interesting and solid moves to maintain relevance to a degree in football (but more so in basketball). The Pac-12 is obviously headed toward its vicious death at the end of this academic year. Of the so-called P5, that leaves the ACC. The ACC is largely considered to be headed toward its own demise, as well, but much more slowly. No one else wanted the schools they took. They took them in part to try to buy their way out of an earlier death if, in fact, FSU, Clemson, and UNC find a way to kill the GOR (which they very well may). They didn't take them because they enamored with Stanford or Cal academics (and let's not forget this is actually a 3-school deal; SMU is in here, too). The ACC is riverboat gambling with its life. If FSU, Clemson, and UNC can overcome to GOR, the ACC can maybe survive as a much lesser conference with who they have left. If they didn't add these teams, they'd likely be headed down the road of the Pac-12 much more quickly than they'd hoped. most powerful? yes well-founded? lol, not really, not much is very well-founded outside the SEC which is the only conference left that actually is a regional conference. (2 time zones, only 1 hour difference, 12 states all continguous, nothing bastardized like the other 3 conferences)
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 7, 2023 12:29:34 GMT -5
A school can't say tomorrow, "We're unilaterally joining Conference X." That conference has to invite them. And the conference has to see value in those schools to extend such an offer. The Big Ten and the SEC are far and away the most powerful and well-founded conferences right now. The Big XII has made some interesting and solid moves to maintain relevance to a degree in football (but more so in basketball). The Pac-12 is obviously headed toward its vicious death at the end of this academic year. Of the so-called P5, that leaves the ACC. The ACC is largely considered to be headed toward its own demise, as well, but much more slowly. No one else wanted the schools they took. They took them in part to try to buy their way out of an earlier death if, in fact, FSU, Clemson, and UNC find a way to kill the GOR (which they very well may). They didn't take them because they enamored with Stanford or Cal academics (and let's not forget this is actually a 3-school deal; SMU is in here, too). The ACC is riverboat gambling with its life. If FSU, Clemson, and UNC can overcome to GOR, the ACC can maybe survive as a much lesser conference with who they have left. If they didn't add these teams, they'd likely be headed down the road of the Pac-12 much more quickly than they'd hoped. most powerful? yes well-founded? lol, not really, not much is very well-founded outside the SEC which is the only conference left that actually is a regional conference. (2 time zones, only 1 hour difference, 12 states all continguous, nothing bastardized like the other 3 conferences) Why is regional a requirement for well-founded?
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Sept 7, 2023 12:31:42 GMT -5
most powerful? yes well-founded? lol, not really, not much is very well-founded outside the SEC which is the only conference left that actually is a regional conference. (2 time zones, only 1 hour difference, 12 states all continguous, nothing bastardized like the other 3 conferences) Why is regional a requirement for well-founded? what does 'well-founded' mean in teh first place, lol so yes, IMO being regional is part of being 'well-founded', whatever the hell 'well-founded' means.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Sept 7, 2023 12:45:59 GMT -5
I am absolutely positive well founded was meant to be well funded. I don’t even think it’s that difficult to figure out.
|
|