USC & UCLA to B1G by 2024; conferences react; TV contracts thread
- Thread starter Liontown
- Start date
I think that’s part of his point. There are too many FBS programs currently. It should be closer to 40-50. Doing this moves in that direction. It’s a radical departure, but one that is likely coming and will be polarizing for fans.Like with his time in Philadelphia, Chip Dip is thinking too far outside of the box. His mouth is moving before he thinks about what it is he’s saying. That plan has about 5% merit and 95% nonsense. Basically no conference means what schools negotiate their own TV deals? Talk about killing college football. Alabama, Georgia, OhioSt, Texas, Oklahoma and a fist full of others get big deals but 90% of the rest get peanuts. Think Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rutgres, sPitt or the rest honestly are going to survive?
Stick to football Chip, and stay in your lane.
Maybe I read it too fast, and missed the conference doing the tv deal. I just got the impression he wanted to (ucla) makes their own schedule of teams they wanted. Not so much having to play B1G schools. Same with everyone else. I just don’t want to see schools (I won’t isolate anyone particular) in scheduling 2 games against a normally ranked opponent and 10 games against teams they should have no problem beating. So the finish with a 12-0, 11-1 record so they can make the playoffs.
For the record, Purdue does = Wake Forest
Another good point ...how are family, friends and fans supposed to criss cross the country to see their kids play in a sport. I am not necessarily against realignment it is what it is but I do feel for families now that don't have the money to travel across the country multiple times a year to see their kid compete.
Lane is to be commended for not having players from Utah, California, and Australia on his team ... oh, wait
Where was his concern about those poor athletes from OU and UT when they moved to the SEC?
It is what is now... pandora's box has been opened and no putting the genie back in the bottle. Where this ends up and shakes out in 10 years will be interesting to see what schools are left in D-1 for football and basketball.
If you want to look for someone to blame start with college presidents.
Nope.
Take a collective look in the mirror.
It is the fans that have the power and responsibility here.
The power, because at the end of the day, we FUND it. Say no to buying tickets, buying merchandise, watching games, etc. Without us, the whole thing collapses.
The responsibility because it is we who demand winning teams. Winning costs money...higher coaches pay, better facilities to attract good recruits. We are the ones forcing it with our demands for winning....college presidents need to get that money from somewhere.
How long would our Pres and AD have jobs if they came out and said "We are done with the arms race. We will go back to moderately paid coaches, facilities that reflect our academic mission, and players who are true student athletes."
The answer is....about a week. Because we want to win games and make the CFP.
The fault lies with US.
I'm not a fan of Lane Kiffin, but I think you are missing his point. If a player that is currently on the team thought that most, if not all, their games would be in the old PAC-12 region and now they find out in 2024 they are going to play half of their conference games on the east cost or in the mid-west there is a difference in expectations.
The good news is all of this is not until 2024 and players can transfer without any penalty. So, if playing on the west coast is really important to them they have a few months to make a decision.
It's not like companies relocating is really that rare of an occurrence or entire companies shutting down and families relocating is something new. So, I'm not all that sympathetic.
The fact that players from Utah, Australia, etc. signed to play in Mississippi is not the same unless they thought they were signing to play closer to home.
Stanford coach: Our intention is Power 5 football
"I think the players that committed to us and came here, they want to play Power 5 football, and that is what our intention is with this university," Stanford coach Troy Taylor said Tuesday. "I can't imagine anything else."www.espn.com
“Simply put, success in Stanford football is essential for the success of Stanford University.”
I hope ND goes to he** instead of the...oh wait. ACC might be worse than that.
If the B1G commissioner was smart. Once that happened, he sends memo that B1G teams can no longer schedule ND. Then send a letter to them door knobs stating that they can no longer be in the B1G hockey league. Even if the conference has to help fund another school in starting a hockey program to take their spot. I know we need a certain number of teams to qualify as a tournament conference.
I don't want ND either. Regardless of revenue, etc. They'll only try to throw their weight around and get what they want.
A statement right from the article attributed to him states "“Notre Dame is an independent in football, but they’re in a conference for everything else,” Kelly said, alluding to the Fighting Irish’s other sports primarily playing in the Atlantic Coast Conference. “Why aren’t we all independent for football?..."
Yes, he also stated this, and while I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine the multitude of teams directly excluded would take issue with this. Just look at how many teams have jumped up from 1-AA and/or FCS in the past few decades.
May I respectfully request where in the article anything like this is implied? The only mention was why not independent and an earlier reference to ND. Anything like that would directly be related to what the other poster wrote.
A complete separation means they are guaranteed left out. Whereas Cincinnati has recently made the playoff and the hope had always been there for a few other teams over the years. May be a small difference, but not insignificant.
While I generally agree with the thought process of what's happened with the "supersizing" of conferences regarding playing others within a respective conference, can't say I agree with a blanket more Auburns, less Purdues. I would like scheduling to be somewhat balanced. If the less successful teams play the other less successful teams, you basically have a current B1G East and B1G West scenario.
I made the inference myself (Kelly did not say that explicitly, at least not in the article) that there would be some formal oversight over the structure he is suggesting, a Commissioner (or a Committee due to the sheer size) perhaps. There would have to be, I believe. In that role, the Comm. would be responsible for, among other things, equity across the great collection of Independents. A smarter, more sensible, and more agile NCAA just for football, maybe. To that end, they would need to greatly discourage such scheduling, as the entire point in this structure would be to create more consistently interesting match-ups in which a couple of quality losses does not take away from playoff chances, but an inordinately low strength of schedule would, even at 11-1, e.g. The current, or very recent past structure, tended to do just that to some degree.
So if UCLA wants to schedule 10 "G5" teams to ensure at least a 10-2 record, they would be free to do so, and then they could enjoy a trip to the Birds Eye Frozen Peas Bowl in Frostbite Falls MN and watch the playoffs on TV.
My point (which I see you understood) about comparing Purdue and Wake is that with a new overarching structure of all Independents, divided into say 65 "P5" legacy teams and 68 "G5" legacy is that I'd rather see us play Wake than Purdue at their current levels of competitiveness, generating more interest in that 2nd quality tier of games that will occur throughout a season.
And with a 12 game regular season, there are naturally going to be some mismatches and some money games on the schedule. We want all 133 teams to have full schedules, and we probably want the Top Tier of those 65 teams playing only 1A/FBS schools, and nothing at the 1AA/FCS level. The old G5s would certainly still schedule down a step, though.
Let's say, for arguments sake, any given team in the Top 20 today has maybe 6 to 7 sorta-to-really interesting, tough games, primarily in conference (1st and 2nd tier), and 5 to 6 lower tier games (OOC, bottom of conference, ala UMass, Rutgres, whoever). With the expanded playoffs and no conference affiliation to dictate scheduling, the Penn States of the world will be encouraged to play more Auburns and North Carolinas and fewer San Jose States and Bowling Greens, e.g. Then we'd be looking at maybe 8 to 9 sorta-to-really interesting match-ups, and we know that a strong showing of 10-2, with a few good quality wins and a couple of quality losses, still gets us into the playoffs.
I remember that barely 35+ years ago, there were a lot of Independent major schools in NCAA football, spread all across the country. They each figured out how to put together a full schedule, understanding that better intersectional match-ups meant more TV opportunities (after 1982), meant that fans had more interest overall and would want to see how these Independents did against the various conferences in bowls and in upcoming seasons.
Anyway, I like that Kelly and others are thinking outside the box to drive home some important points about where the torrid love affair with more and more money is leading us. Do we ever reach a tipping point where the fans eventually lose enough interest that viewership drops and the revenues the media cos. take in can no longer justify the contracts? TBD, I guess.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Good discussion, much appreciated.
As for the Commissioner or Committee inference, that inference is mine. Kelly was not quoted as saying or hinting at that. I'm inferring that there would have to be some kind of oversight, a better, smarter NCAA if you will, to herd all these cats and keep them heading toward the mission and vision.
As for the old G5s being left out, Kelly suggests they have their own playoffs and Champion. There would still be many games between the old P5s and the old G5s. Some would still aspire to step up in competition, and the Comm would have to create some avenue for that, I'm sure. The old G5s for the most part already had less of a payout from the media than the P5s, so their contracts as Independents (if they also would go that route) has a chance to stay on par with where they are now.
The point about Auburn vs. Purdue is that while a Purdue is interesting and sometimes is good enough to beat a Top 20 team, they are the vanilla ice cream in the 31 flavors shop. The proverbial unseasoned dish. We get unreasonably nervous about scheduling an Auburn (Ooo! Black raspberry!) more than once every few years because we don't want to risk the OOC loss. With expanded playoffs, those quality losses don't matter nearly as much, so let's pick up Auburn or Ole Miss or TCU and not look back at dropping a Purdue. We would still play a balanced schedule with our share of Purdues and NC States and Wake Forests etc. But the excitement over interesting intersectional games would drive fan interest and TV prime slots, rather than another noon kickoff on Peacock.
All just my opinion. It's all completely moot, of course.
OU and UT make a hell of a lot more sense to the SEC than these moves the Big has made recently.
Sources: Cal, Stanford to ACC hits 'roadblocks'
The ACC presidents met Wednesday night, and the pursuit of Cal and Stanford for conference membership has "hit significant roadblocks," sources said.
www.espn.com
”Sources confirmed one school that has been pushing for the addition of Cal and Stanford is Notre Dame, which is a member in the ACC in all sports except football. Notre Dame does get a vote on expansion, and it has a long history with Stanford. The fit from an Olympics sports perspective is attractive, too. But multiple athletic directors have questioned why anyone in the league would listen to Notre Dame because the Irish remain so steadfast in remaining independent.”
Exactly. F*ck nd.
That might be true as well, just bat s**t crazy what is going on in the name of $
Sources: Cal, Stanford to ACC hits 'roadblocks'
The ACC presidents met Wednesday night, and the pursuit of Cal and Stanford for conference membership has "hit significant roadblocks," sources said.
”Sources confirmed one school that has been pushing for the addition of Cal and Stanford is Notre Dame, which is a member in the ACC in all sports except football. Notre Dame does get a vote on expansion, and it has a long history with Stanford. The fit from an Olympics sports perspective is attractive, too. But multiple athletic directors have questioned why anyone in the league would listen to Notre Dame because the Irish remain so steadfast in remaining independent.”
Exactly. F*ck nd.
Matt Wadleigh
August 10, 2023 6:20 am PT
Why would Notre Dame vote to bring Stanford and Cal to the ACC?
"As of Thursday morning, it seems that the ACC’s discussions about adding Stanford and Cal are going nowhere. The ACC does not appear to have the necessary number of votes among its members to approve an invitation to the Cardinal and the Golden Bears. Yet, that’s not the full story.It was revealed on Wednesday that Notre Dame has a vote among ACC member schools on the Stanford-and-Cal agenda item. Notre Dame is not a full member of the ACC. It is not part of the ACC in football. It plays several ACC teams each season and plays within the ACC in non-football sports, but it is not a football member of the conference. Why Notre Dame would therefore get a vote on this and other urgent ACC matters is a point of considerable debate. As you could imagine, it’s a point of frustration among other ACC members, which is probably why a vote to approve Stanford and Cal to the conference will ultimately fail. There will be enough voices at the table to insist that Notre Dame must not get its way.
One obvious question: What “is” Notre Dame’s way? What is Notre Dame’s bigger play here? What’s the ultimate purpose of wanting Stanford and Cal in the ACC from the Irish’s point of view?
The biggest reason for ND’s stance on Stanford and Cal to the ACC is this: It’s all about the College Football Playoff.
Think about it: If Stanford and Cal are pulled out of the Pac-4, it becomes that much more possible that the Pac-12 dissolves and fully ceases to exist.
What is the consequence of that scenario if it happens? A Power Five conference dies, and with it die all those revenue distributions and allocations for the playoff and the NCAA Tournament. Notre Dame, as an independent, would not have to deal with an automatic playoff spot for the Pac-12 in future seasons. Stanford and Cal staying in the Pac-4 and working out an arrangement with the Mountain West in which the Pac-12 keeps its playoff spot and playoff money distributions would represent one small but real obstacle toward Notre Dame making the playoff every year. Killing off the Pac-12 in an official (logistical, bureaucratic, structural) way would significantly increase the Irish’s playoff odds.
Now that you’ve gained that answer, watch how fans and pundits reacted to the news that Notre Dame actually does get a vote in the ACC. It was, as you could imagine, a firestorm:"
Also, if granted as protected matchups ( or not) it’s two more guaranteed wins to make the playoffs.
Matt Wadleigh
August 10, 2023 6:20 am PT
Why would Notre Dame vote to bring Stanford and Cal to the ACC?
"As of Thursday morning, it seems that the ACC’s discussions about adding Stanford and Cal are going nowhere. The ACC does not appear to have the necessary number of votes among its members to approve an invitation to the Cardinal and the Golden Bears. Yet, that’s not the full story.
It was revealed on Wednesday that Notre Dame has a vote among ACC member schools on the Stanford-and-Cal agenda item. Notre Dame is not a full member of the ACC. It is not part of the ACC in football. It plays several ACC teams each season and plays within the ACC in non-football sports, but it is not a football member of the conference. Why Notre Dame would therefore get a vote on this and other urgent ACC matters is a point of considerable debate. As you could imagine, it’s a point of frustration among other ACC members, which is probably why a vote to approve Stanford and Cal to the conference will ultimately fail. There will be enough voices at the table to insist that Notre Dame must not get its way.
One obvious question: What “is” Notre Dame’s way? What is Notre Dame’s bigger play here? What’s the ultimate purpose of wanting Stanford and Cal in the ACC from the Irish’s point of view?
The biggest reason for ND’s stance on Stanford and Cal to the ACC is this: It’s all about the College Football Playoff.
Think about it: If Stanford and Cal are pulled out of the Pac-4, it becomes that much more possible that the Pac-12 dissolves and fully ceases to exist.
What is the consequence of that scenario if it happens? A Power Five conference dies, and with it die all those revenue distributions and allocations for the playoff and the NCAA Tournament. Notre Dame, as an independent, would not have to deal with an automatic playoff spot for the Pac-12 in future seasons. Stanford and Cal staying in the Pac-4 and working out an arrangement with the Mountain West in which the Pac-12 keeps its playoff spot and playoff money distributions would represent one small but real obstacle toward Notre Dame making the playoff every year. Killing off the Pac-12 in an official (logistical, bureaucratic, structural) way would significantly increase the Irish’s playoff odds.
Now that you’ve gained that answer, watch how fans and pundits reacted to the news that Notre Dame actually does get a vote in the ACC. It was, as you could imagine, a firestorm:"
There was a reasonable chance that Texas would have joined the Big Ten had Delaney not fu@ked it up and wound up with the booby prize, Nebraska.
Over the last 30+ years, the 2 conferences that never should have bottom-fished for schools that didn't bring a clear benefit where the SEC and the Big Ten, IMO.
SEC has been pretty solid on that front - Texas A&M, UTexas, Oklahoma, all clear winners.... though one could make a strong argument against bringing in Mizzou. Arkansas and USCe could have had solid arguments made for them - at least at the time of their inclusion circa 1990ish.
Big Ten - more of a mixed bag. Rutgers was abjectly idiotic, obviously. Maryland could have probably had an argument made in their favor (and maybe still could), though it hasn't worked out great so far. USC is a likely winner - UCLA, not so much. Oregon and UDub have some positives - but the geographical issues make it less of a sure thing, IMO.
The fact that adding Rutgers (And Maryland?, maybe UNL as Reaper pointed out) may have very well impeded the Big Ten's ability to attract quality additions - like UTexas - makes it all the more FUBAR.
The other conferences have been positioned as flea markets for the Big 2 to shop at - and have been in a long scramble to maintain relevance - and at least maintaining critical mass might be a valid objective for each of them (something the Pac12 has now failed at)
Also Penn State lost the first Rose Bowl that was played in the "Rose Bowl" 1923 USC 14 PSU 3
We learned from that loss and applied what we learned to win the last one. Good job by Franklin and the staff.
Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick explains why they pushed ACC to add Cal, Stanford
The power shift in college sports isn’t ending anytime soon with realignment and expansion talks circulating nonstop. The Pac-12 Conference looks to be dissolving, and now Stanford and Cal have explored other conferences and even received interest from the ACC. Notre Dame apparently made a push to bring these two programs to the ACC, although it got hit with some roadblocks on Wednesday night.Now, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick opened up on why they were making the effort to try to lure Stanford and Cal, per Heather Dinich of ESPN.
‘ND AD Jack Swarbrick told me the reason they advocated for Cal and Stanford was because “The notion that two of the very best academic institutions in the world who also play D1 sports could be abandoned in this latest chapter of realignment is an indictment of college athletics.”‘
Stanford and Cal don’t offer much on the football or basketball front, at least as of late. However, the academic appeal is surely appetizing for other conferences, and getting some of the West Coast market is another bonus.
But, those talks hit some snags, and now it remains to be seen what the future holds for both the ACC and Pac-12. Notre Dame is in the ACC in essentially every sport except for football, where they remain independent, so it makes sense for the new Irish AD to make a push to bring them to the conference.
The Pac-12 Conference has four programs remaining, and it’s only a matter of time before they go elsewhere.
I would bet part of the snag is when the ACC schools said sure ND, as soon as you officially join ACC in football as well, and ND said no.Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick explains why they pushed ACC to add Cal, Stanford
The power shift in college sports isn’t ending anytime soon with realignment and expansion talks circulating nonstop. The Pac-12 Conference looks to be dissolving, and now Stanford and Cal have explored other conferences and even received interest from the ACC. Notre Dame apparently made a push to bring these two programs to the ACC, although it got hit with some roadblocks on Wednesday night.
Now, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick opened up on why they were making the effort to try to lure Stanford and Cal, per Heather Dinich of ESPN.
‘ND AD Jack Swarbrick told me the reason they advocated for Cal and Stanford was because “The notion that two of the very best academic institutions in the world who also play D1 sports could be abandoned in this latest chapter of realignment is an indictment of college athletics.”‘
Stanford and Cal don’t offer much on the football or basketball front, at least as of late. However, the academic appeal is surely appetizing for other conferences, and getting some of the West Coast market is another bonus.
But, those talks hit some snags, and now it remains to be seen what the future holds for both the ACC and Pac-12. Notre Dame is in the ACC in essentially every sport except for football, where they remain independent, so it makes sense for the new Irish AD to make a push to bring them to the conference.
The Pac-12 Conference has four programs remaining, and it’s only a matter of time before they go elsewhere.
Get unlimited access today.