Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Cat941]

12 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

The funny thing about the PAC is that they could of destroyed the big 12 but couldn’t agree to add some of those schools many years ago.  

[Rocky Style]

9 hours ago, Cat941 said:

Dang she needs to get that ice off of there.

[Cat941]

Wow look at South Florida!

[GoBulls84]

10 hours ago, Bull Matrix said:

The funny thing about the PAC is that they could of destroyed the big 12 but couldn’t agree to add some of those schools many years ago.  

Yep. They were too good to add Texas Tech and Oklahoma State along with Texas and OU. Their elitism also pushed away several other potential G5s that could have grown and thrived in the PAC as well. They thumbed their nose at everybody else right up until the moment they had no TV deal and ran to those other conferences they felt they were better than.

[MMW]

52 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

Yep. They were too good to add Texas Tech and Oklahoma State along with Texas and OU. Their elitism also pushed away several other potential G5s that could have grown and thrived in the PAC as well. They thumbed their nose at everybody else right up until the moment they had no TV deal and ran to those other conferences they felt they were better than.

It was my understanding that it was disagreements around the Longhorn network.

Money

[MMW]

1 hour ago, Cat941 said:

Wow look at South Florida!

Rutgers moves to the big ten and their applications only rise 5.8%.

Other schools they moved to bigger league also did not show a boon.  I'm not saying this isn't interesting, just not sure what it tells us.

[BULLSHTR]

2 hours ago, MMW said:

Rutgers moves to the big ten and their applications only rise 5.8%.

Other schools they moved to bigger league also did not show a boon.  I'm not saying this isn't interesting, just not sure what it tells us.

I think that it shows that winning is more important than who you play. Also, a lot of people going to college ultimately don't decide where they go based on football. A lot do, but most probably don't.

[Peatearpan]

16 hours ago, Cat941 said:

Opinion: Welcome to the end of college football as we know it | CNN

WWW.CNN.COM

---

The College Football Playoff Championship Game marks the end of college football as we know it, after which the sport will fundamentally reconstruct itself, argues Will...

The death of the Pac-12, a conference that went from having its own cable channel to no longer existing seemingly overnight, is one of the more stunning things to happen in college sports in decades. Its disappearance leaves only four major conferences, but if you’re in the Big 12 or (especially) the ACC, you shouldn’t breathe all that easy just yet.

The biggest losers of college football realignment this year were unquestionably Washington State and Oregon State. After years in the Pac-12, their conference imploded around them, and while everyone else found safe havens, they were stuck in the mid-tier Mountain West … with their days of national relevance likely behind them forever.

But if you feel bad for them, don’t get too comfortable: Your school could be next. An inevitable result of a two-conference, NFL-style system will be a consolidation of schools, which will mean, with geography no longer a determining factor, only the schools that get big TV ratings will get to play on the biggest stage. 

We will do them one better: 

A 1 conference, xfl-style system.

 

Orrrr, maybe we can lobby congress to impose extremely large taxes on to airport travel to artificially increase the cost to fly the team out, thus forcing all conferences to go regional again.

[Peatearpan]

5 hours ago, GoBulls84 said:

Yep. They were too good to add Texas Tech and Oklahoma State along with Texas and OU. Their elitism also pushed away several other potential G5s that could have grown and thrived in the PAC as well. They thumbed their nose at everybody else right up until the moment they had no TV deal and ran to those other conferences they felt they were better than.

[MMW]

1 hour ago, BULLSHTR said:

I think that it shows that winning is more important than who you play. Also, a lot of people going to college ultimately don't decide where they go based on football. A lot do, but most probably don't.

The article suggests otherwise.