Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Roaming Bull]

30 minutes ago, Cubanbull said:

The ACC and PAC are in danger. Already Clemson is complaining about the ACC contract and it’s length and how they won’t be able to compete with SEC. USC also has noticed. It’s going to either you are in SEC or BigTen

BigTen will get the Big12 treatment. If Texas & OU sign with the SEC the Pac12 will have lost their play, so their marquee schools will look to form another super conference. I feel like the Western schools will be at a huge disadvantage in the super conference arms race. The southeast, Midwest, and east coast have way more wiggle room. The western half will be tough to upgrade. They may resort to adding the BYUs and Boises of the world to try to hold ground

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, Peatearpan said:

A few down years, equals a dwarf I guess. You guys think we can get this thread to over 2k pages? Is there a limit to how many pages before this thread is full?

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, SquareKnight said:

When it comes to conference realignment...football rules. Florida St is 21-26 over the last 4 years.  This in a conference with teams such as Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech...where Miami has been down most of the decade...and where no one has seriously challenged Clemson for the conference title in eight years.

Can you kindly point to a single example where realignment had anything to do with winning or losing?

[BullyPulpit]

4 minutes ago, SquareKnight said:

When it comes to conference realignment...football rules. Florida St is 21-26 over the last 4 years.  This in a conference with teams such as Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech...where Miami has been down most of the decade...and where no one has seriously challenged Clemson for the conference title in eight years.

It comes down to money. Florida State still makes it and still spends it. I would bet everything that they won't get left out if the SEC and B1G expand to 20 or more teams. 

[JTrue]

7 minutes ago, SquareKnight said:

When it comes to conference realignment...football rules. Florida St is 21-26 over the last 4 years.  This in a conference with teams such as Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech...where Miami has been down most of the decade...and where no one has seriously challenged Clemson for the conference title in eight years.

There is no world that exists without FSU being in any version of whatever the top of college football is.

[puc86]

1 minute ago, BullyPulpit said:

It comes down to money. Florida State still makes it and still spends it. I would bet everything that they won't get left out if the SEC and B1G expand to 20 or more teams. 

Exactly. We are discussing Texas to the SEC, certainly that wasn’t earned by any on the field accomplishments.

[JTrue]

1 minute ago, puc86 said:

Exactly. We are discussing Texas to the SEC, certainly that wasn’t earned by any on the field accomplishments.

There are people who still think winning is what drives conference expansion or that it ever did.

[puc86]

1 minute ago, JTrue said:

There are people who still think winning is what drives conference expansion or that it ever did.

Are you allowed to use your best decade? If so that explains Pitt and Syracuse getting in with decades past but what decade did Rutgers use to get into the B10? An entire century of on the field accomplishments wouldn’t have gotten them a single decades worth of accomplishments worthy of moving into the B10.

[JTrue]

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Are you allowed to use your best decade? If so that explains Pitt and Syracuse getting in with decades past but what decade did Rutgers use to get into the B10? An entire century of on the field accomplishments wouldn’t have gotten them a single decades worth of accomplishments worthy of moving into the B10.

Everyone loves to whine about how things are now and how college football used to be so pure.

College football has never been about accomplishments. It has always been about the money and schools have always been cooking up ways to make it and ways to cash in. I teach this in my HCC class when we go over the beginning of college sports at the start of the 20th century. Yale was a shady ass school 100+ years ago when they were the kings of football and schools are still looking out for themselves and how to best keep themselves rich.

"In 1905 (the earliest date I can find on the matter), there was an expose done on Walter Camp and Yale football and the claim was that the athletic department had accumulated a slush fund of about $100,000 dollars from ticket sales and an $8 student fee. The president of Yale refused to investigate the charges and Camp declined comment on the matter. The issue was "confirmed" in 1914 when Yale opened its 78,000 seat stadium, the Yale Bowl." (lifted from my own notes and research)

 

[puc86]

21 minutes ago, JTrue said:

Everyone loves to whine about how things are now and how college football used to be so pure.

College football has never been about accomplishments. It has always been about the money and schools have always been cooking up ways to make it and ways to cash in. I teach this in my HCC class when we go over the beginning of college sports at the start of the 20th century. Yale was a shady ass school 100+ years ago when they were the kings of football and schools are still looking out for themselves and how to best keep themselves rich.

"In 1905 (the earliest date I can find on the matter), there was an expose done on Walter Camp and Yale football and the claim was that the athletic department had accumulated a slush fund of about $100,000 dollars from ticket sales and an $8 student fee. The president of Yale refused to investigate the charges and Camp declined comment on the matter. The issue was "confirmed" in 1914 when Yale opened its 78,000 seat stadium, the Yale Bowl." (lifted from my own notes and research)

 

In all fairness to college football purists it’s pretty common for humans to look at the present as being the worst ever and the past to be the golden ages