Jump to content


MotownSports Fan
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MichiganCardinal

  1. I take all training camp news with a massive grain of salt, because you always hear the good, that [insert player here] is in the best shape of their life, and that [insert player's injury] is not bothering them at all. And never the bad. This is encouraging though. It sounds like he's ready to bounce back from what was likely far and away the most adversity he's experienced in his life playing football.
  2. I agree on both counts. West: Stanford, Cal, U$C, UCLA, UW, Oregon Mountain: Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa Midwest: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Illinois East: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers Slight divisional favoring to the Mountain and Midwest maybe but neither are awful. Five games in-division, three games inter-conference, one cross-over with assigned divisional pairings (West/Mountain and Midwest/East, 1v1 being a practical conference semifinal, 2v2, 3v3, etc.). Fun to think about even if unlikely. It would draw eyes, that's for sure.
  3. I know I cut the cord last year and my parents did this year. Though the streaming platforms are getting annoying quick with the sheer quantity and that's only going to get worse.
  4. I think there are two separate matters here. Where we are now and where we will be in 10-20 years. Right now, if you could get an outlier California school like UCLA to the Big Ten, it would be huge money-wise because you could get BTN onto the screens in LA. Similar to when Rutgers was added, it doesn't matter that very few people in New York watch Rutgers play football (in LA watch UCLA play football), BTN is now apart of the cable package, and you're making likely millions and millions of dollars on that alone. It doesn't even really matter who that school is - U$C, UCLA, heck CSU Fullerton if they still carried football - you just need the LA market to pick it up. 10-20 years from now though, cable may very well be dead (as we know it). At that point, location will mean much less (**** you Rutgers and Maryland) and fan base will mean much more as streaming becomes more and more prevalent. CSU Fullerton won't mean anything, they don't have fans (comparatively). U$C though would be massive. They have a nationwide following who would subscribe to whatever streaming platform was carrying BTN.
  5. This was my original post: Yes, California schools would go into the former bucket of Texas schools and OK State in making more money short term... My contention remains that Kansas and/or Iowa State are more likely to be #15/16 than any school in California or Texas. If the Big Ten wanted to go all-in, snipe the PAC 12 (which I don't think they are inclined to), and create the first mega-conference (which I really don't think they are inclined to), even then I think they would invite only the AAU schools in the conference: UW, Oregon, UC Berkeley, Stanford, U$C, UCLA, Utah, Arizona, and Oregon, and still seek out Kansas to get to 24, making four six-team divisions in the conference. Money matters, and the Big Ten would be screaming that they want it with those offers, but even then there are certain standards held in similarly high standards to it (in this case academics). I think those PAC-12 schools would consider it, but likely be largely a package deal. I wouldn't see 4 saying yes and 5 saying no. And I think there would be a lot of grumblings on that end about Washington leaving Wazzu, Oregon leaving the Beavers, and Arizona leaving Arizona State. It's all fun to think about, but even with those California schools considered, I think the next wave of expansion for the B1G is still most likely (right now at least) to be Iowa State and Kansas.
  6. Adding a Texas market or markets would definitely add more money in the short term.
  7. Then I think that should come out as you said it, not as a cheap shot answer to a lazy question. There is a difference between coming on a show or podcast and making nuanced points publicly that Patricia did not treat people right versus a one-line zinger that just drops you to his level and shows that you are bitter.
  8. I think it's both though. At the end of the day, I think the Big Ten would have taken UT and OU, but I don't think it would be open arms like the SEC did. I think there are certain schools (led by UM and NW) who would have had a real gripe taking OU, and I think it would have come out in leaks. Money may trend with AAU schools, but it's far from linear. More money can be made in the short term picking from what's left of the Big 12 with Texas Tech/TCU/Baylor & Oklahoma State than with Kansas & Iowa State. I think the latter remains a lot more likely than any of the former.
  9. I do too, but I think they are an exception to their rule, and possibly the only exception. Despite not being in the AAU, Notre Dame still has strong academics, strong existing academic and research ties to the member universities, and has strong traditional ties to member universities, both academically and athletically. [Insert random PAC 12/ACC/Big 12 school here] doesn't.
  10. I like to pile on Patricia as much as the next guy, but Slay should probably let that grudge go at some point. He thought he was better than he was (and still does) and then trended downward in performance in a big way (which has continued in Philadelphia). That cannot be solely attributed to the head coach of the football team he played for at one time, and he's not doing himself any favors with comments like that.
  11. I'm not one for free passes but Okudah gets one for last year. Between COVID shortened camp, the awful staff, injuries, and being a rookie at that position, he had no shot.
  12. Nebraska was a member when they joined and there is a lot of talk that if they had not been, they would not have been approved. Their being removed from the AAU was itself suspicious, as a member being removed had not been done in the AAU's 100+ year history, and it seemed for very cherrypicked reasons. It was something to the effect of their med school being on a campus aside from their main campus and their research focus being agricultural - both things which were true upon their admission. I digress. I agree that there is a difference of values in the Big Ten, led by Ohio State, which would have no problem making the Big Ten into SEC-lite. They would need schools to join them in that charge though (if they don't leave). Nebraska and Iowa might. But that is still only 3/14. The athletics departments of these schools is one thing, while the admins (actually making the decisions) is another. Those admins do not bow to Ohio State. They respect Ohio State as a peer institution, but that's it. The other institutions eventually agreed to play football, but it was not like the SEC where it became "we are playing we will figure out how later", it was "let's bring the doctors in to tell us how to make this a reality". And I think everyone is very grateful that no players became seriously ill that we know of. College football is 100% about money, you will get no argument from me. It's the breadwinner of college athletics and without it, a lot of athletic departments would crumple. However, conferences are not 100% about money. Institutions are not 100% about money.
  13. I think there is a stark difference in motives between the conferences that should not be ignored. There are obvious commonalities in their strive for more money and to not be left behind as the world turns, but beyond that, differences are significant. The SEC just wants influence and to be the best. They care about football above all else, and they'd love to have a 12-team College Football Playoff that had 6 SEC members included. The Big Ten is different. This was seen when COVID threatened the season. With some exceptions (Ohio State, Nebraska, Iowa later on), the vast majority of the Big Ten was just not willing to sacrifice other morals they care about in the name of a sport. The Big Ten exists first and foremost as a collaborative body of institutions rich in history with like-minded academic goals. Athletics are a secondary purpose for the Big Ten's existence. If Texas and Oklahoma had come to the Big Ten first with interest as a package deal, it wouldn't shock me if the Big Ten didn't say yes right away like the SEC was sure to. Oklahoma is not an AAU member and does not bring intangibles to the table (as Notre Dame would) to make up for it. It's also far outside the existing footprint of what the Big Ten already has working for it. Likewise, I don't think the Big Ten members are especially inclined to set the trend as this realignment and reorganization occurs. I don't think they will allow themselves to be passed by if the SEC and ACC start making moves to be mega-conferences (because, money), but I don't think they're the types to do a line of coke and decide to raid the California and Florida schools.
  14. Wheels are moving it seems. I don't think this is the best possible scenario for the Big Ten, but it makes a lot of sense and it's far from the worst possible scenario (looking at you Rutgers and Maryland).
  15. I don't think we will ever see a 30 or 40 team mega conference because I don't think a lot of Big Ten and PAC-12 admins (that would need to) would give an okay to leaving behind the additional non-athletic collaboration components of having their present conference. I do think (particularly with the new laws) that there could be a branching off of sorts, where we finally see football treated as an independent beast from the rest of college athletics. I could see the four major conferences plus some others forming a new governing body outside the NCAA for just college football. Which would be interesting in its own right, because it wouldn't surprise me to see some outlier schools then decline to join, effectively removing themselves from the utmost tier of competitive college football.
  16. I hope this round of conference realignment and playoff expansion is where Notre Dame is finally told they are not special and to go eat ****. With five major conferences things were quirky anyway, but if I had my way with the playoff now, 1-4 seeds would be the conference champions (ACC/B10/P12/SEC), followed by 5-12 seeds being at-large, with at least one slot (oftentimes the 12-seed) being reserved for the best Group of 5 conference champion. Don't cater to ND and make exceptions. They can stay independent if they want, but if they are not going to play a conference championship then they'll be the #5 seed at best.
  17. This is what I see too. Oklahoma and Texas will adore the first big television contract and will adore the first revenue split where the SEC overtakes the Big Ten in total revenue, but as time goes on and Texas continues to wallow in mediocrity and OU continues to fail at taking the final step, they will realize that they made more money from 10-1 Oklahoma playing 9-2 Iowa State for a spot in the CFP (and that subsequent CFP berth) than they make from 7-4 Oklahoma playing 5-6 South Carolina for jack all. Playoff expansion helps this some, but it does not make Oklahoma a team that can go 7-2 or 8-1 in SEC play.
  18. Absolutely. I just don't see more long-term money for them in the SEC vs. the ACC/Big Ten/PAC 12, or even just by continuing to own the Big 12.
  19. Those two things (influence and making money) are already true though. I recall the great video I linked below from a few years ago. Assume the Big 12 was going to die anyway, as could have been predicted 20 years ago. If I am a Texas or Oklahoma, what are my revenue projections in the ACC/Big Ten/PAC 12 versus in the SEC? In the other three, they continue to fight for playoff spots with the elite in that group, and likely get their behind creamed by Alabama in the playoff when they make it... In the SEC, they likely get their behind creamed by Alabama in week three and fight for the rest of the season to maintain relevancy and make the Capital One Bowl. Is the loss in revenue from not being regularly competitive entirely offset by the gain in revenue from being in the far most superior conference? I don't see how joining the teams that kick your behind and playing them every year in the regular season will make you as good or better than the teams that kick your behind.
  20. Preseason schedule analysis is a crapshoot. The talent level discrepancy between top-10 NFL teams and bottom-12 NFL teams is not as much as many preseason predictions make them out to be. Yes, talent matters, and yes, the Chiefs, Bucs, and Bills have more talent than the Lions, Jets, and Jags. But any given Sunday is a mantra for a reason. This is not MLB where everything tends to even out over a marathon of a six month season. So much of an NFL game and an NFL season is tied to game plans, in-game adjustments, injuries, and luck that there is a reason it seems every year a team that is supposed to win 12+ ends up winning 6 and a team supposed to be in the gutter makes the playoffs. It is easy to look at the Lions and say that they lost the one thing going for them for the past decade in Stafford and they ain't done **** in that decade so they'll suck. That's incredibly oversimplistic. I am not saying that they are going to make a playoff run, but I think the pundits who say the Lions will win 1-3 games are just making the easy prediction rather than the one most likely to be accurate.
  21. That's what I don't get about the SEC's expansion and UT/OUs motives here. In any conference, you are going to be playing 8-10 games against each other. There is going to be the haves and the have-nots. Sure, you can make the joke out of Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Arkansas yearly, but that only stretches so far until high school seniors make the realization that you are now in that tier. Oklahoma has been a top four team thanks to beating up on the likes of TCU, Texas Tech, and Kansas. It's a whole new ballgame against Alabama, Auburn, and LSU. I don't see them continuing this same level of success against the big boys, and possibly even turning into a Nebraska or Tennessee. And I definitely don't see Texas making some leap back into relevancy.
  22. Yep. He had the chance to walk and instead signed an eight-year extension. When you have buyer's remorse, you don't get to be mad at the contract's terms you signed and act like it's the other parties fault.
  23. Football is just not as big of a deal out west as it is in the Midwest or in SEC country. Even with the likes of Oregon and Washington, those games are just not as important to the people on and around campuses. U$C is a bit of an odd duck in the PAC-12 and possibly the lone exception, but I don't think they'll go anywhere. That said the TV networks are deliberate in what they do. If they wanted those PAC-12 games to have higher ratings they wouldn't perpetually stick them at god awful hours. For instance, they put Stanford-Kansas State (a season kickoff game being played at AT&T Stadium) on FS1 at 12:00 noon EST (9:00am PST). TV networks treat the PAC-12 like their ***** while catering to the needs of the SEC brass.
  24. Kansas is much more appealing than K-State, and I think the Wildcats best hope is to cling to Kansas and hope to make themselves a package deal. In fact, if I were them I'd be on the phone with Kansas right now offering to make themselves just that if it hits the fan. They just don't have a lot to offer conferences. The Big Ten doesn't make sense academically, the PAC-12 doesn't make sense geographically even with Texas schools, the SEC doesn't make any sense competitively, leaving the ACC, who would be both reaching across the State of Missouri by adding them and not really adding much benefit in terms of either football or basketball. When they could add an up-and-coming Cincinnati program as their 16th program that makes much more sense geographically and also allows for a recruiting in-road to Ohio. I think if it does hit the fan (which signs point to) and push comes to shove, Kansas will not want to be so married to K-State that they themselves are left without a paddle.
  25. The Big Ten was the only all AAU group before AAU pulled that shady stuff with Nebraska after they joined. PAC 12 has majority AAU but Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State, and Washington State are all not members. Given Utah is their most recent addition, seems it may not be the most important thing to them, though I'm sure it's considered.
  • Create New...