Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Bull Matrix]

[michibull]

4 minutes ago, TheUpperHand said:

I think most conferences are thinking short term "What have you done for me lately" or "What can you give me now"

Yup, except the B1G and SEC, everyone else is just trying to survive. It’s quite disturbing that all of this is being allowed to happen. I’m all about free market, but this is literally destroying everything except for 2 conferences and this needs to stop. To me, it’s appalling that “grown adults” are this selfish and short sighted, reminds me of our politics these days (not going there, but just wanted to use it as an example of how as a kid we look at adults as mature people doing what’s right and as we become adults we see these grown “leaders” as nothing more than selfish children), haha

[Rocky Style]

1 hour ago, KB said:

Wonder how hard MK is pushing USF to ACC before a FSU/Clemson departure? 

I was thinking this earlier.  Additional teams would dilute the blocking powers.

[Gat-Rat Bull]

1 hour ago, WoolyBully said:

That would be 16 wins (37%) and 27 losses lifetime total against those teams, not all of which were during their respective ACC years.... FSU (1-3), MIAMI (1-5), PITT (3-7), etc.  We could probably leave that part out of the marketing brochure and be no worse off. UNC is 0-2 against USF, and 'cuse is 2-8 against USF. In basketball, we're 1-10 against 'cuse. My point being, that I'm not sure how historical records would sway the decision for an invite one way or the other, given the number of factors that weigh into the decision-making process. 

It may not sway an invite decision, per se, but it shows that USF has the potential to compete at that level. Sort of a "get your foot in the door" type thing. Imagine if USF had never beaten those teams. If that were the case, I think even our most positive fans would have doubts about USF's sports viability in a "higher" conference. Thankfully, our (very short) history does include some really nice wins against big-brand teams, which I think (in a small way) will help with the perception of USF as an expansion candidate going forward. Hopefully, we'll find out one day soon...

[TheUpperHand]

32 minutes ago, Gat-Rat Bull said:

It may not sway an invite decision, per se, but it shows that USF has the potential to compete at that level. Sort of a "get your foot in the door" type thing. Imagine if USF had never beaten those teams. If that were the case, I think even our most positive fans would have doubts about USF's sports viability in a "higher" conference. Thankfully, our (very short) history does include some really nice wins against big-brand teams, which I think (in a small way) will help with the perception of USF as an expansion candidate going forward. Hopefully, we'll find out one day soon...

With how things have gone in the past few rounds of expansion, I'd be skeptical that we'd get much consideration for that. Heck, if I was VPoA, I'd be making that same pitch. But I wouldn't dwell on it too long; I'd be focusing on what we're doing now and what we're going to do this year (and cross my fingers that CAG delivers). The last time we beat a ranked team was 2016. The last time we beat a ranked OOC team was 2011. How many people are still involved with the program from then? The giant-slaying mythos is long over IMO. Had we done a better job at building a brand and maintaining relevance, we might be able to sell that. There are plenty of teams that haven't been good in a while but are still being carried by their brand -- we're not one of them. We didn't sustain success and invest in the program when we should have and missed our opportunity to capitalize. We have to start from scratch and CAG needs to win, period. The fans will come back if we string together a couple winning seasons. But we have to be consistent. We need to win the games that are relevant vs losing the headscratchers. I'm skeptical that we're going to do it -- CJS didn't, CCS didn't, CSH didn't, CWT was probably 1 loss away from being in the same bin. I like CAG, seems like a nice dude, seems to care, seems to believe in the team. I hope he does it.

[MaltLiquorBull]

7 minutes ago, TheUpperHand said:

With how things have gone in the past few rounds of expansion, I'd be skeptical that we'd get much consideration for that. Heck, if I was VPoA, I'd be making that same pitch. But I wouldn't dwell on it too long; I'd be focusing on what we're doing now and what we're going to do this year (and cross my fingers that CAG delivers). The last time we beat a ranked team was 2016. The last time we beat a ranked OOC team was 2011. How many people are still involved with the program from then? The giant-slaying mythos is long over IMO. Had we done a better job at building a brand and maintaining relevance, we might be able to sell that. There are plenty of teams that haven't been good in a while but are still being carried by their brand -- we're not one of them. We didn't sustain success and invest in the program when we should have and missed our opportunity to capitalize. We have to start from scratch and CAG needs to win, period. The fans will come back if we string together a couple winning seasons. But we have to be consistent. We need to win the games that are relevant vs losing the headscratchers. I'm skeptical that we're going to do it -- CJS didn't, CCS didn't, CSH didn't, CWT was probably 1 loss away from being in the same bin. I like CAG, seems like a nice dude, seems to care, seems to believe in the team. I hope he does it.

This is basically true.  Maybe we'll dumb-luck our way to an invite, and that would be fine by me, but if you want to get out of a ****** conference, you need to be a contender in that ****** conference every year.  You need to either win it or come in 2nd/3rd every year.  You simply can't be a doormat team and expect to get picked up based on the fact that you were #2 about 15 years ago.

[pascobull]

I saw this meme today and it instantly reminded me what I've been reading on this thread for the last 11 years.

[monktified]

Maybe all the teams not in the SEC and B1G band together and just stop agreeing to play them.  If that's the way they want to play they can just play each other see how that works out for them.  Watch the whole thing burn down.  

[macphisto]

5 hours ago, John Lewis said:

I would highly doubt that FSU has no interest in the B1G and I would also highly doubt that they have interest in the Big XII. The bottom line for them is that they want equal annual tv revenue to what UF is getting and they will only get that in 2 places. They will go to either of those 2 places if the invitation is made.

Agree with you regarding Miami.

I am saying the Big Ten has no interest in FSU.  They want better quality academic institutions and AAU membership has usually been a pre-requisite.  With big names like USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc in the pipeline, market size means more.  Rutgers, for instance, has much better TV ratings since joining as does Maryland.  The Big Ten MAKES you attractive.  There's an argument that UNC and Duke may be the most attractive to them in the ACC - academics and basketball pedigree and a growing market in the triangle.  Miami brings academics - though the football is not to the level it has been.  Brings a big market.

Much depends USF's performance.  With the AAU creds, new facilities, and winning - USF would become appealing in a few years.  They need to win, though.

[John Lewis]

15 minutes ago, macphisto said:

I am saying the Big Ten has no interest in FSU.  They want better quality academic institutions and AAU membership has usually been a pre-requisite. 

Yes, AAU membership is certainly something that the B1G. Nebraska had AAU membership and then lost it after they were invited to the B1G.

While FSU does not have AAU membership, they are ranked pretty high in academics.

If AAU membership is the prerequisite and the B1G want to gain a foothold in the Southeast, then they have limitied options, which I wouldn't mind at all.