www.bannersociety.com
that makes sense, you can definitely tell that it wasn’t designed for all the new security crap
www.denverpost.com
I would say the national pols and the Supreme Court decision killed football as we know it. We are moving toward pay for play and Texas and Oklahoma know that the SEC has a huge advantage in recruiting over all other conferences. Pretty soon the SEC will look at others the way the NFL looked at the USFL. Now, things may change. If USC, UCLA and maybe Notre Dame join the B1G, I'd revise what I just said. But then the SEC could just reup with Clemson and Florida St.Keeler: Texas, Oklahoma killed college football as we know it. Now CU Buffs might be wise to follow Nebraska’s lead and call Big Ten.
Keeler: Texas, Oklahoma killed college football as we know it. Now CU Buffs might be wise to follow Nebraska’s lead and call Big Ten.
When you bring up the premise of the CU Buffs exploring a move to, say, the Big Ten, you expect Gary Barnett to laugh you off. Only he doesn’t. At all.
Lost me at the 13th word…
I don’t think so. Oh before the transition to a streaming model is fully realized the Big Ten will have realized probably 20 to 30 years worth of a revenue stream based upon being in the first tier in the NYC DMA. That’s a ton of money and certainly justifies bringing Rutgers into the fold. If at some future time Connecticut makes sense, we can always be added then.
I guess I’m in the minority but I would like this. Kind of like going back to the big East. Play schools that are regional opponents that we care to beat. Also there’s a realistic path to being one of the best teams in the conference. If a power conference is out this to me would definitely be a good option.
These are the teams we are going to play regardless. The Super Conferences are not going to have ANY non-conference games.
Disagree - they'll have some because they will all want to pad their schedule for "easy" W's. And, we could do some horse trading: men's and women's bball games for football games.
So your position is you would rather be someone’s easy W to pad their stats than to play and try to win against teams the fan base cares about beating?
No, my point is we'll get games against P5/P4/P3/P2 conferences (whatever it ends up being); some winnable and some not so much (e.g. upcoming against Clemson). Bottom line is I'd much rather play "up" in competition and play more attractive programs in football. Similar to what the basketball program gets in the BE versus being in the AAC. Better for the fanbase, better for the athletes/competition, etc.
Why would BC and Syracuse choose to leave the ACC? They may occupy the bottom tier of ACC football (hoops too), but the $$$$$ still flow. No way they leave, unless forced out, or the conference disbands with the defections of Clemson, Fla St., Ga Tech, UNC, etc.
Agreeing with you - you conflated my position with the OP.
Relying on being a buy game for teams is going to get tougher if leagues keep adding more and more league games to the schedule. If we can be in a conference people care about against universities with some shared history I think it would be a home run. To be able to win games will certainly help all problems.
No one knows what will happen but the SEC ADs are interested in going to 11 all conference games with one reserved for outside yearly rival. When you combine this with a championship game and perhaps even a team conference playoff if they reach 20 teams, and then of course a 12 team football playoff, there will be no room for anything else.
The whole point of the original post was what happens when the ACC loses 6 teams to the B1G and SEC
11 games?!?
