Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Cat941]

11 minutes ago, WoolyBully said:

Yep, but is that enough? How much of this is taking inches when we really want miles? Is it just access to the playoffs, or do we really want to be on the good side of the velvet rope? How long would we be satisfied lounging about the AAC? Would another decade be palatable? The reason I think along these lines is due to the incredible inventory of college football teams in existence and the growing chasm between the haves and have nots. I can't envision any sort of miracle that will narrow that gap or suddenly leverage a G5 to be on par with P(x). It's not like "Oh, this P5 school joined our conference, so that makes us a P5 conference. Now, where's my chair?". 

I fear that closing the gap into a power position will not happen.  So I accept what we can get.  It's never enough though.  I want things to be equitable and inclusive.  

[Triple B]

16 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

I've been going back and thinking about the idea of SMU offering to forgo revenue for 5 years just to get into the ACC.  I don't like it, as in a way it furthers the idea that G5 teams are not valuable and that they should have to pay their way in to realignment.  G5 teams already make huge concessions in realignment.  Look at what the B12 did by giving Colorado and others a full share, versus the 4 non-P5 additions taking partial revenue shares.  

If a G5 gets an invite it means they are valuable to some degree but not as valuable as some P5's. I'm assuming the ACC was looking at SMU primarily for location and if it had worked out, God bless 'em. There are are very few G5's able to give up 5 years of conf revenue ....

[Cat941]

13 minutes ago, Triple B said:

If a G5 gets an invite it means they are valuable to some degree but not as valuable as some P5's. I'm assuming the ACC was looking at SMU primarily for location and if it had worked out, God bless 'em. There are are very few G5's able to give up 5 years of conf revenue ....

Not USF for sure.  Not when building an OCS.  

[Cat941]

 

[MaltLiquorBull]

1 minute ago, Cat941 said:

 

That doesn’t fill me with confidence.  “People who are now available?”  As in “orphaned Pac12 member schools?”  Wtf?

[WoolyBully]

4 minutes ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

that doesn’t fill me with confidence.  “People who are now available?”  As in “orphaned Pac12 member schools?”  Wtf?

Well, what else can he possibly say - with any measure of credibility? All it says is that 'we're discussing amongst ourselves', and the opposite would be 'we're not discussing any of this expansion business'. How well would that go over? It's not like its breaking news. Well, maybe in this environment it's what passes for news. No decisions...but we haven't shut off the lights and locked the door. 

[Triple B]

Just now, WoolyBully said:

Well, what else can he possibly say - with any measure of credibility? All it says is that 'we're discussing amongst ourselves', and the opposite would be 'we're not discussing any of this expansion business'. How well would that go over? It's not like its breaking news. Well, maybe in this environment it's what passes for news. No decisions...but we haven't shut off the lights and locked the door. 

We are at times a little trigger happy 'round these parts ....

[Bull Matrix]

13 minutes ago, WoolyBully said:

Well, what else can he possibly say - with any measure of credibility? All it says is that 'we're discussing amongst ourselves', and the opposite would be 'we're not discussing any of this expansion business'. How well would that go over? It's not like its breaking news. Well, maybe in this environment it's what passes for news. No decisions...but we haven't shut off the lights and locked the door. 

I find the response to be in line to be as vague as possible probably due to USF trying to get out of the AAC whenever the opportunity arises.

[Jim Johnson]

1 hour ago, flsportsfan83 said:

Thats why they join in 2 years. Take enough from aac to get to 8 next year.

Eight may not be enough.  That's 7 conference games when they were previously playing 9... and the AAC members play 8.

So the four PAC schools need TWO more games each... and the four AAC teams would need ONE more game each.  Are there even 12 FBS teams that need one game each next season? (sure it's possible, but I'm not checking 133 on Future Schedules).

[JAFFX2]

2 hours ago, flsportsfan83 said:

Thats why they join in 2 years. Take enough from aac to get to 8 next year.

precisely what he meant by "Wait until ‘25 for MWC teams"

Edited August 13, 2023 by JAFFX2