michibull

If the B1G actually forces Nebraska to regain AAU or get booted, you have to respect them for prioritizing academics and standards for their members. Kind of like Notre Dame, I can’t stand them for their “better than thou” attitude toward independence, but at the same time I really respect that they don’t buckle to societal pressure and stay with their tradition. 

11 hours ago, Outlaw said:

How ironic would it be if the b12 collapased before the ACC.

I think if the ACC only lost FSU and Clemson, picked up Pac2, USF and UCONN, it would be a much better and more valuable product than B12 (for basketball and football). 

20 hours ago, Professor BullDawg said:

https://x.com/sunsetAMIR/status/1778825552432132409

Man, I wish we could keep him indefinitely. I like everything about this man, has quickly become one of my all time favorite coaches. I know it’s only been a year, but the intangibles are there. As long as he is coaching our Bulls, we’ll be a good solid program!!

I have to say, seeing it in color, it looks a lot better. While not what I was hoping, I’ll be happy with it and to finally have a real home for our football team. 

On 4/8/2024 at 10:56 AM, Jim Johnson said:

the fourth- and fifth- year players on a team like Oakland manhandled the more talented, but significantly younger, players at Kentucky

You’re spot on with this. There are multiple reasons that the NBA is terrible and the draft means nothing. One of the reasons are the one and done’s. Drafting a Jr or Sr has given the young man time to grow (physically, mentally and emotionally). You start to find the leaders, hard workers and busts. The NBA draft is pointless outside of the top 3 because they are just taking a chance on a young player. Back in the 80’s and 90’s at least a 1/3 of the first round had contributing players with careers, not anymore. These NBA executives are foolish with how they do it. The NFL is completely different. 

2 hours ago, Bull Matrix said:

If and when that happens you really won’t see much difference between all those power conferences in the Super league imo. 

Agreed, if a super league is created and there are 80 teams in 10 division, all of these conference clusters go away. I’m sure they will try and keep rivalries like Mich/OSU, UF/UGA, USC/UCLA together, but everything else is scrapped and rebooted (which the divisions will resemble conferences before all of the expansion started back pre 2006, haha). 

1 hour ago, Cat941 said:

So no ability to elevate from G5?!  

You’re looking at it from the wrong point of view. This format would allow us to control our own destiny and push our administration to prioritize winning. Right now we could go undefeated every year and not be included in the CFP or expansion. This format, as long as we play well and win, we stay in the top tier. 

Honestly, if we take an objective view, it’s what needs to happen. When it comes to basketball and football, colleges are the minor leagues for the NFL and NBA; time to treat it as such. I am a traditionalist, but even I can see that my childhood college football and basketball are dead, time to evolve. I like that the bottom 10 teams can be relegated, will still give us a chance to be elevated. My preference would be to have the UFL (ex USFL/XFL) grow to be the minor league for football (hold an amateur draft for the best HS and College players for UFL and NFL) every year and let the NCAA carry on with the real student athletes; but that won’t happen. 

35 minutes ago, aroth said:

I read that it takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC. I’ve seen Swaim speculate to: FSU, Clemson, UVA, UNC, NC ST, Miami, ND, Pitt, Syracuse, and UL all wanting out of the ACC. Based on his reporting they have the numbers to disband, so they should do that and avoid all this legal mumbo-jumbo regarding the grant of rights.

Unless they don’t actually have the votes and Swaim is making it up as he goes. 

I have no inside info on this, but I highly doubt UL, Pitt and Syracuse would vote out, I don’t think they would have a home (I don’t even think NCST has a home, nobody even talk ls about them; other than trying to follow UNC). In addition, since ND is part time, do they count as a full vote? Like I said, I don’t know, just my worthless 2 cents, haha. 

15 minutes ago, jchem1995 said:

I dunno but if it is Michigan it Uof M . If I’m wrong I’m okay with that too. But how bout GO BULLS.

Haha, yeah, they say U of M up here. I personally don’t like them or their fans.

The only hang up for us is if the ACC wants western partnered for Cal/Stanford, then OSU/WSU/SDSU become real threats to us. 

1 hour ago, Outlaw said:

If fsu and Clemson leave. The acc still have better teams than the b12 and more championship teams in the last 50 years. Also the acc would have roughly 720ish million dollars cash to invite other teams in they choose. I would think the best leftover b12/g5 teams would rather join a conference that pays more per year and has better football teams with  more national championships in the last 50 years. Basketball  really doesn't drive power TV Contracts,  it is all football.

I agree. If it is ONLY FSU and Clemson, I think we stand a good chance of getting invited to the ACC, if we are invited along with OSU, WSU and a couple others the ACC would still be better than the B12; and if the ACC can renegotiate or find that there needs to be a balance of 4 power conferences and hold to it, it could be the absolute best scenario for us. 

3 hours ago, Cat941 said:

ACC exodus may not happen, FSU and Clemson 'might' leave

FLYWAREAGLE.COM

---

Steam On host Jim Williams reported something counter to what everyone has been saying in recent weeks on March 21: the ACC won't see an exodus of schools leave

 

This would be the best case scenario for us. The ACC is going to have to expand by a handful of schools, and I think we would be near the top. 

23 minutes ago, Mike Stuben said:

Personally, of the 4 they took, here is the order I value the schools:

BYU (brings eyes to tv sets)

UCF (lots of up side, great market)

Cincy (recent success in football, historically good basketball, solid)

Houston (Big 12 is fine in basketball without Houston, and Houston is such a non-factor even in the city of Houston)

 

I have BYU easily ahead. UCF and Cincy close, and Houston way behind the other 3. 

I actually agree with you. If conferences had stopped at 16 teams, then I think the B12 may regret one or two, but is 20-24 is the goal, they pick good ones. To add, if I were the B12, from the ACC I would avoid BC, NCST or WK and add USF and Tulane before some of them. 

17 hours ago, jmbull said:

But it’s ours

Exactly!! That is why I have never been huge fan of fancy suites. We are not an NFL/big business team. We need a sound quality stadium, with potential for expansion later. We just need bleacher seating for most areas, enough suites to help make it profitable and a quality foundation to build upon. At the end of the day, USF football will finally have a home of its own!!

I honestly don’t see the ACC going the way of the PAC12. Schools like BC, Pitt WF, Syracuse, NCST have nowhere to go, even the B12 won’t want them. I truly believe enough of them know this and will make “alliances” to keep a decent group of 6-8 schools together and rebuild with the best of the rest. It will end up being BIG/SEC as the big 2 and then B12/ACC as the next 2 then everyone else. 

On 3/17/2024 at 9:57 PM, ClassOf2005Bull said:

I think some people are missing the point of NIT declines. 

1. With how the transfer portal works now, it actually can be beneficial to decline the invite b/c you get a jump on the teams in the tournament and if the goal is to make the tournament, then you need to upgrade where needed. It's not always about the team declining due to "sour grapes."

2. Everyone **** on UNC last year saying they were "arrogant" for declining, but it gave them a jump on the portal and look at them this season. Are we UNC? Absolutely not, but it doesn't mean we can just overlook any competitive advantage we can get for next season. If it means opting out of a secondary tournament that generates little interest, then so be it. 

3. At the end of the day, all the "good sports" can argue "it's more games," "It's a chance to compete", etc. The tournament is looked on as a JV trophy and most guys at this level don't really get "amped up" to play for a JV trophy and save the "The best way to show them we deserved to be in it, is to go win the NIT." Cause those who have the power to make those determinations don't care and aren't thinking "You know, USF really proved us wrong by going and winning that tournament." 

Support the team no matter what, but let's not act like if we play or don't play that the NIT is going to have much of an impact, if any, on next season. This isn't thirty years ago, it's a new era in college sports, whether we like it or not and championships matter to these kids. Not consolation games.

You’re right, we are not UNC and most schools are not. The NIT serves a dual purpose, 1) it gives seniors on the team one last chance to play and try to win something. 2) for teams that recruit and develop, it gives the younger kids more games and a feel for playing post season ball to season them for next year. Schools like UNC, Duke, Kentucky all have one and done’s, which means this tournament is pointless. Schools like Maryland, Ole Miss, Pitt don’t get that type of high talent one and done’s so this is foolish. The NIT is still a way to get your name out there and the “extra” week of not recruiting is not going to sway a recruit one way or another. I personally think it’s disrespectful to all of college basketball and the players to just “quit” on the season early. 

Let’s take a step back for a moment. The BIG, SEC and B12 are all at 18 teams. Realistically they are gonna want 2 teams each and stop at 20 (will save on sharing revenue). If this is the case, we can assume Duke/UNC to BIG, FSU/Clem to SEC and probably Stanford/Cal or Mia/VA? That leaves BC, Louisville, NC St, Syracuse, Wake Forest, GT, Pitt, VT, SMU for sure. Add USF, Memphis, Tulane, UCONN, East Carolina, Temple; that is a solid 14 team conference. If they added Army/Navy and Oregon State, Wash St, SDSU, AF, there’s 20 (not to mention the 2 question mark ACC schools) and off we go. 

16 minutes ago, aroth said:

I personally rank the ACC leftovers above the B12 on the field, and it’s close on TV viewership as well. That being said, it’s really splitting hairs and the P2 will eventually exclude both. 

I agree with you. The B12 have zero teams that anyone is interested in; they have quantity, not quality. IF the ACC loses FSU, Clem, UNC and Miami; VT, GT, NCST, Pitt, Louisville, Duke, Stanford, Cal, Syracuse are all better than what the B12 has except maybe Oklahoma St. 

4 hours ago, Gismo said:

You guys are a bit deluded. 
 

Ten years ago Texas A&M spent $450 million just renovating their stadium a few years ago, adding 20,000 capacity from 80 to 100k. 

$300 million isn’t a lot today. Not what it used to be.

 

There are a lot of ways to stretch 300mil. First, leave it open at one end zone and reinvest in the rest of the seating areas, next leave the other end zone lower, so you can add to the second level of the grand stand side. Third, do not have the “mini” lower level bowl and build it like a traditional lower bowl. The way they chopped it around, makes it looks “lego” to me. This is just my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I will be happy just to get something. I just love stadium designs and want us to have a quality stadium with character. 

19 hours ago, Dave_Glaser said:

So I see Mississippi, Pitt and St. John’s have already announced they won’t accept NIT invitations. Collegiate sports . . . what to make of it? No thanks to postseason bids, players opting out of bowl games, free agency transfer process, UCLA and Rutgers in the same conference, etc. It’s becoming really hard to justify paying attention to any of this.

I’m sorry to say, but College sports are dead. When reflecting on my youth, I LOVED college sports more than professional sports because of the rivalries, regional battles, students doing extraordinary things and the fact you could see that a lot of the kids loved their schools and had pride in being apart of that. It was more down to earth and relatable. It has gotten so bad, my kids don’t even watch college sports anymore. It’s sad that we let it get this bad. I say “we” because we the people can refuse to give money and rating to these greedy conferences by not watching. Sorry, but it makes me sad. 

On 3/14/2024 at 3:59 PM, belgianbull said:

Don't want to whine too much since getting an OCS is a positive, but the design imo is kind of vanilla. I hope they spice It up a little bit. It looks so similar to Tulane and other group of five stadiums.

Agreed, it feels very “MLS” and that is never good. At $300milli, this feels slightly better than UCF’s bounce house. I think they need to throw these plans in the trash and start over. 

Great job @E.T.!!

16 minutes ago, MMW said:

I hear you.  I think I'm still spoiled over the Big East invite.  I think it made me, and others, feel special.

In reality we are not and we will only get "called up" as part of a desperate backfill for a dying league; hated for what we represent by those who feel we diminish their prestige by being associated with us.

I’m with you on this. Like most have said, it’s the B1G, SEC and everyone else. B12 will just get more money because they have all the leftovers. I just want USF in a respectable league and if that means the ACC and have BC, Wake, Syracuse, Louisville and NC State or any other leftovers, I’ll like that a lot more than the AAC. Other than USF, College sports are dead to me because of the B1G/SEC and NIL. 

34 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

ACC will add le creme de la creme of the AAC, Mountain West, and PAC2.

Honestly, this would be a way more interesting league than what the B12 has going. B12 is a dis functional array of leftovers from the Midwest/southwest. The ACC/AAC/P2/MWC has better markets and teams. I would laugh if this happens and the new ACC becomes more valuable that the monstrosity that is the B12, haha.