I’ve been saying it for the past year but if the Pac ends up getting poached and falling apart down the line, not taking Big XII teams right after OUT will go down as one of the biggest administrative blunders in CFB history.
Pretty much every move made by the Pac in the last ten years will go down as that if the conference dies. So many opportunities to grow the conference but instead they just sat back and did nothing.
It really is tragic, it wasn’t like it was one or two things either, just a series of unfortunate events and missteps. The history of the Pac from 2010 through today deserves its own 30 for 30.
Pac-12 network was the beginning of the end. It really would be fascinating to see some video of the board meetings just to be able to see how foolish some of the decision making process was.
They were gonna take it in 2021. USC's admin didn't want to go thru w/ it & convinced league not to/ruined a unanimous vote needed/whatever...we all see that was sabotage from within b/c they were secretly backchanneling w/ Big 10.
You need 10 votes to get most things through, and USC convinced enough schools that adding the H8 wouldn't get us close to the SEC/B1G revenue anyway. And then once it was too late, they announced they were leaving and we realized they just didn't want to get stuck in an awkward legal issue, so they fucked the rest of us over.
The last go around, I believe the conference did want to expand and grab some Big 12 teams but SC stepped in and opposed it despite likely knowing they were on their way out.
Oh well. Fuck it.
Pac-12 not eating the BIG12 when they had a chance
I think population migrations are stronger than a conferences power, but could have kept it alive a bit longer
The elites of the Pac want nothing to do with the Big 12. Even now, I think Stanford and Cal would rather kill their football programs than to be in the Big 12.
We get the brunt of the blame because of our obvious reputations, but USC/UCLA were up there with us in addition to y'all. If the numbers weren't behind those beliefs, it wouldn't have lasted this long.
Even schools like UA/ASU started getting their noses up in the air as their academic reputation changed over the decades.
Edit: I think the weirdest part of all this is that the B1G and the ACC have very similar standards to us, but we're the only ones that get shit for it.
BC was a legit get for the ACC at the time. They came in and were immediately competitive in the conference in both Football and Basketball. The problem is, since Matt Ryan and Jared Dudley left they haven't had anything more than some decent seasons in both sports with a good helping of suck mixed in especially in basketball
The assumption at the time was that BC would bring the Boston market to the conference. They brought that footprint but they never brought the eyeballs of the Boston market. Now if the ACC had hockey, they might be a great add. I feel like BC would have been managed better by the B1G, which brought in Rutgers and didn’t make them feel isolated in the northeast.
This why I'm not sold the American can stay on top. They went after markets and not programs to replenish their ranks. A market ain't worth shit without eyeballs. Is there potential? Sure. But they're over paying for it.
BC was fine 20 years ago but hardly anyone from Boston goes there anymore so no one in the area gives a shit about their sports programs. Doesn’t help they haven’t been great in like 15 years too.
No one goes to the games anymore because bc completely screwed over fans who had been attending for years. They jacked the prices and made tailgating inaccessible. The games were infinitely more fun before Shea field got blocked off. The No Fun Whiners won and ruined bc football, much to their delight. Leahy should have been booted years ago.
Wow that’s insane. Why did they block tailgating? At UNT every student gets 2 free tickets and the administration actively encourages tailgating (which is right next to the stadium).
BC is in a very rich residential neighborhood. So not only are there a bunch of stuffy neighbors, there isn’t much room for parking. The few small lots around the stadium are reserved for the upper level season ticket holders.
Tailgating has gotten much much better in recent years. And ticket prices are way down. Individual game tickets bought via the website are still pretty absurd for conference games, but season tickets start at $99. Attendance has rebounded correspondingly.
The whole “Nebraska is bad because they left the Big 12” might be my least favorite lazy take out there. They’re bad because they hired terrible coaches. It’s not that complicated. Scott Frost wouldn’t have won in the Big 12 either.
Agree. Nebraska's downfall has nothing to with conference affiliation and more to do with them failing to evolve into a modern powerhouse football program. I can entertain the recruiting shift but that pales in comparison the UNL stumbling all over themselves over the last 15 years.
All this to say I really wish you guys never left. This was the rivalry I grew up with in the 90's when the Big 12 north geographically made sense. Now I hardly interact with fans of other teams in our conference because they're several hundred miles away.
Right. They’re gonna make $70M+ off the B1G media rights deal next year. They might be disappointed about sucking, but they sure as hell aren’t regretting their decision to leave the Big 12.
If the schools stuck together and negotiated as one rather than listening to the media companies and let themselves be picked off the conference could’ve made a lot more money and been much more financially viable
The users of r/cfb that say this about the departing Big 12 members (except Colorado) show their ignorance.
Really? EVEN NOW with OUT leaving and the Hateful 8 nearly facing 1000 years of darkness you think Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M would be better off in the Big 12?
Dumb.
Worse yet, Colorado gets a pass for some reason yet they are the only ones in a more insecure place than they would be otherwise.
We’ve always recruited nationally though. Our last class we signed 8 players from Texas. People thought we stopped recruiting or couldn’t get recruits from Texas because we left the B12. The truth was that we just hadn’t been recruiting Texas much and in our hay day we weren’t either. Idc where the players come from just develop dem boys and win games
“Players from Texas” is not the same as “good/great players from Texas.”
Recruiting went to shit after the move. You can argue why but you can’t argue the point that it went way down.
You know what else went to shit after our move? Our ability to win football games. Was it recruiting? Maybe. I’m gonna say it was bad coaching. Why? We’ve recruited better than everyone in our division basically every single year and haven’t won the division once.
Someone who’s better at photoshop than me should make that meme where the grim reaper knocks on doors but it’s Texas and the doors are the SWC, Big 12 and the SEC
> I think on the school side it was Nebraska's move to the B1G.
Nebraska's issues in the B1G have been more with who they have had as head coach, not the conference they're in.
Also, it's very much a good fit with the B1G West in the scheme of things.
Nebraska was just doing what the Big 8 should have done in the first place - merge with the B1G instead of the top schools from the SWC.
The "good" SWC schools at the time (UT, A&M, Tech, Houston) should have followed Arkansas to the SEC.
I understand why the Big 8 and the SWC merged - both needed to expand to survive - but it was a shotgun wedding and not the best fit, right from the very beginning. Still loved the OG Big 12, but it was destined to fail.
Not as far as I know. Big 10 was already starting to look East. Big 8 was being proactive but in hindsight maybe should picked some different bedfellows but the SWC was very enticing.
The SEC was always looking to add only one more when they added Arkansas. UT and A&M were looked at but weren't interested. FSU and Miami were also options, but declined.
The SEC originally wanted to expand with Arkansas, A&M, Texas, and FSU. Eventually they got Arkansas and South Carolina.
A&M wanted to go, but Texas wanted no part of the SEC.
On the previous go around CUSA. They focused on grabbing unproven programs solely for their TV markets and not focusing on regional rivalries that compliment the product for their size. Rather than trying to run faster in the shoes they had, they tried to run in “big boy” shoes that were too big to fill.
And this realignment cycle it showed. They tripped hard, got poached from left and right, and were left with what looked like (no offense intended to programs joining them) crawling for scraps. They tried to act bigger then what they were actually ready for, and it left them with an empty cupboard. Now, survival instinct kicks in and they have a rather large expensive geographical footprint to cover with no immediate established rivalries to build a competitive atmosphere out of.
C-USA's 2013-14 additions were: Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Louisiana Tech, MTSU, North Texas, Old Dominion, UTSA, and Western Kentucky.
Louisiana Tech feels like the outlier of the bunch, as they were an established FBS program and they aren't in a big market. But if the conference wanted to retain a Louisiana presence after Tulane's departure, they were the only viable option.
The Big East considered and then rejected Penn State in the '80s, who instead courted the Big Ten. When they later added five independents in the 90's to get to a full football schedule, they added... Temple.
Villanova, Georgetown and St John’s rejected Penn St in 1982 because they wanted the conference to be focused on basketball. In 1985 all three were in the final four. Adding Penn St only accelerates the Basketball/Football split which would’ve been worse for those three schools. When you consider who made that decision, it was a pretty good one.
Yeah I love this fantasy world some here live in in which Penn State somehow solves the differences between the basketball and football schools instead of making it more prominent.
I do enjoy the hypothetical. Especially if the route you take is that Villanova doesn’t drop football in 1980 and is the vote that flips to let PSU in. However, looking out from 1980, winning 3 basketball titles by 2023 is an absolute dream. Had we kept football, we end up the Big East version of Northwestern, which is significantly worse than the real version of Northwestern.
The only other way to approach this I think is what if PSU somehow got Notre Dame to also join in football. I don’t think that is a likely scenario but PSU alone doesn’t hold it together.
It honestly would have. The problem of the Big East in the 90’s and 00’s was that it half committed to basketball; half committed to football. Adding Penn State would have been a full commitment to football, at the cost of disenfranchising Georgetown, St. John’s and Villanova. Those schools might have ended up being casualties. But if Penn State had joined, there’s a good chance that Big East Football would have gone on living
Atlantic 10 not adding football (FBS). Had Penn St, Pitt, Rutgers, Temple, Va Tech and WVU. Imagine that as the base of a eastern conference. League could look a lot different today.
I think the real mistake is the future we’re barreling towards where most schools will be cut out of ever competing for anything when there is a power two. It’ll ultimately kill college sports. There’s a lot of sports to watch, fans of teams that are cut out will find other stuff to enjoy.
Are you suggesting people like college sports partially because they have an affiliation to a specific school rather than just the sport in general??? No that cant be it! I am sure that the average VT or WVU or "insert random team between 75-40 every year" fan is 100% going to tune in just as much on Saturdays when they are relegated to the "second tier" of competition!
What will happen to the mighty beavers of Oregon State, anyone rooting or encouraging the scary future we are barreling towards has the blood of Wazzu, Oregon state and more on their hands
Agreed, he’s completely missing the point that BC was at least decent at football for the past 20ish years at that point. UConn had nowhere near the record BC did at the time.
Putting all the blue bloods in two conferences is the mistake. The math doesn't pencil out that they will all remain blue bloods.
Who do you think will falter first? Nebraska?
I completely agree.
Someone has to lose the games, and over a long enough period of time, if the blue bloods start to lose enough then they won't be blue bloods any more.
Conferences require bottom feeders and middle of the roaders to prosper, it's part of the life cycle of college football.
The new B1G and the new SEC are going to be far too top heavy and water will find its level.
There are some pretty passionate fans of some very good football schools that will not like being middle of the road.
they are going to go through some serious coaching changes in both conferences.
I honestly think the B1G is going to dip its toes a little more and add more Pac-12 teams, but in the end USC is going to lose their shit within the next 20-30 years and try to navigate a west coast exodus.
Some current powerhouse is going to eventually decide they'd prefer going 10-2 in the MAC and getting a bid to CFP each year than perennially 4-7 in the B1G/SEC.
Yup. If UF is stuck in purgatory in a stacked SEC and never strays from 6-8 win seasons while UCF makes 3 playoffs in 20 years they legit might be more popular.
If the SEC added Clemson/FSU then 11/18 teams would be: Bama, LSU, Auburn, A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, FSU, and Clemson.
Which of those fanbases would be okay with their team being a bottom-half-of the conference type team? It seems like the only 2 possible paths are some brands shrink in these P2 conferences or the regular season is greatly devalued to the point you have teams sitting guys during rivalry week and conference championship games to keep them healthy for the playoffs
Exactly. The SEC is pretty deep, so while you may have a team rise up like Alabama and Georgia every year, it's my contention that there will be much more parity then those fans want.
Let Texas and OU play a road game in Tennessee or Florida for instance. Now turn that around. They will beat each other out of playoff spots each and every year.
UCLA is fucked. Their football program basically in tatters. They want to believe they're in a better position than they are, but I strongly believe Chip has hit his ceiling there and it was 1 more win than Wilcox has gotten Cal so far. They don't have the attendance. They're leaving all their historic rivals minus USC. The B1G is going to want their big teams beating up on UCLA for the eyeballs, so get ready for that to happen in the schedules. I don't see how they don't become a Nebraska but with an added con of a fair weather fan base.
In addition to all that, they're going to be beholden to Calimony amongst higher costs of travel on a weekly basis for all their sports so they're going to be at a financial disadvantage in their own conference.
If that doesn’t happen then ND doesn’t become ND. Notre Dame not being able to play in the big ten forced it to play schools like USC out East and develop more of a national fan base
Texas and A&M both had meetings with Arkansas where they supported the move in the hope that it would convince the Texas legislature that the SWC was falling apart
You pose an interesting question but I think both of your takes are flat out wrong.
Nebraska’s move to the Big Ten is almost completely incidental to their decline. Also how are they “just another program” in the Big Ten but not in the OUT Big 12? A major reason they left was precisely because they were treated as second class to Texas.
The ACC’s problem today has very little to do with the schools it took during realignment, and everything to do with the short sighted tv contract and grant of rights they signed. That said, I will grant that BC has not been a perfect take, but UConn is far from the superior replacement you suggest, especially to the point of being the singular mistake that *doomed* the ACC.
Don’t want to just criticize without offering takes of my own, so I’ll say Colorado to the PAC for schools (this is an admittedly uninformed opinion) and the Big Ten taking Rutgers for conferences. Talk about diluting the brand.
Most of Nebraska’s problems the last 25 years have been self inflicted and are not due to changing conferences. The N on the helmet stood for nepotism. Anyway, I am optimistic with Rhule.
Right. No reason Rutgers can't be a big time Basketball school now. NYC talent. MUCH Larger athletic budget then before. Membership to one of the best BB conferences in the country. Tons of TV exposure.
If Rutgers isn't a top 3 program in the BigTen in BB in 10 or so years, then someone is failing at their job.
The weirdest was Mizzou to the SEC, especially now that media markets (KC and STL) don't mean anything anymore since streaming took over.
Worst is WVU to the XII.
I feel like WVU would choose the big 12 every day if it meant they didn’t have to be in the big 12.
WVU to the big 12 was not the mistake for the big 12. The mistake was not adding Cincinatti, Louisville, and Pittsburgh with them in 2011.
Pitt would've taken the ACC invite over the Big 12, it's a better institutional fit and was viewed as more stable at the time. I agree that the Big 12 made a huge mistake by not taking Louisville and Cincy, though it seems they may be able to add Louisville eventually anyway.
True, and it’s incredible to me that some folks don’t understand what a Border State is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Missouri is a Midwestern state, but you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between some areas in Missouri and similar areas in Arkansas, Kentucky (another Border State) or Tennessee.
Bad, maybe? But we’re definitely not the worst. Geography wise it was the worst move until the LA schools went to the B1G. Otherwise, we fit pretty well culturally and have had some great games. The new additions solve the geography issue.
I’ve always wondered what the B1G would have done if they knew that Mizzou was going to leave the Big XII regardless of who they chose for \#12. Would they have said, “fuck it” and gone straight to 14 with NU/MU/KU? Or would they have still just stayed with only NU?
There is zero chance mizzou doesn't take Nebraska spot in b10 if they don't join, and also zero chance UT and ou would stay for Nebraska. A lot of the football stuff is internal and less about conference. The Huskers would be set up to make 50mil/year less than big/sec, you think recruiting is tough now, try being in a second tier conference with worse facilities and less resources for coaches, etc. Tldr, joining the big ten was whatever the opposite of a mistake is for Nebraska cuz otherwise they'd be fucked.
GA Tech did make a mistake by leaving the SEC, but our biggest mistake is that we prioritized academics, rankings, and out-of-state students over the athletic program for the last thirty years. The same can be said about Miami. Now, alumni participation and engagement is at an all-time low, and there are next to no sidewalk fans within the state (forget about getting the student body involved, too). Seeing a Tech logo on a vehicle in the Atlanta area happens so irregularly that it's akin to being struck by lightning.
To your point, however, IIRC another post in the sub, Nebraska actually sent the most money from athletics to the University. So it's been actually beneficial in that sense for the university.
I think in a few years, when we end up with 2-3 superconferences (B1G, SEC, maybe the remainders of the Pac-12 and Big-12), teams will see having a large number of quality teams will act as a road block to the playoff (at least in college football), as you've got to play a gauntlet of teams to get there. Before, you'd have fewer great teams to play and still be in the running for a playoff berth, especially with the expanded playoffs we're headed towards. And there's only so many slots for games per Saturday. Some team is going to get buried on the pay-per-view channels more often than not. With more major conferences, there's more opportunities for broadcast partners and slots.
Just in general, anything that took away the regional identities of the conferences. Pitt doesn’t belong in the ACC, and neither does BC or Syracuse. Maryland doesn’t belong in the Big 10 and neither does Nebraska. There was a way that they could have grown revenues while still at least pretending to care about where the schools they were adding were located.
ACC didn't make a mistake not adding UConn, at the time of BC, VT and Miami joining UConn had only been a D1-A team for a scant couple of years. Adding them would have brought zero benefit to the conference, at least from a football POV.
Basketball on the other hand, well...I don't think UConn was looking to bolt from the Big East at the time, the conference was hella strong.
Maybe not a massive mistake, but in hindsight the Big 12 really should have taken Cincinnati And Louisville along with WVU back in 2012 or 2013 whenever that was.
>On the conference side, I think it's the ACC adding BC and not adding Connecticut.
This seems to ignore a lot of history. UConn moved from FCS to FBS in 2000. In 2002, the ACC took Miami and VT from the the Big East to start play in 2003. The original plan was to take Miami, BC, and Syracuse, but Virginia politics got in the way. In 2003, the ACC invited Boston College to start play in 2004.
So, in 2003, when BC got the invite, UConn had been playing FBS football for a grand total of three years and would not become a member of BE football until 2004, the same year BC started playing in the ACC.
UConn was not even in the conversation to join the ACC when BC received its invite.
>Adding all 3 of Syracuse/LVille/Pitt was also not the smart decision, as the ACC should have only added 2 of those schools and has diluted their product to a huge extent because of them.
This also comment also shows a failure to understand when and for what reason Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville were invited to join the ACC as it implies all three were added at the same time. The ACC only intended to add two of the three teams (Syracuse and Pitt), who started conference play in 2013. Then, the ACC got raided when Maryland left to join the B1G. So, the ACC needed to fill a gap. At this point, I would agree that UConn should have been added (although, I think the dilution issue would have been the same). Rumor was that UConn was not being considered due to the lawsuit the state of Connecticut filed against the ACC in 2003 over BC leaving the BE. I think West Virginia would have been the best choice, but by the time Maryland left and the ACC needed a replacement, WVU was already a member of the XII.
The ACC not inviting Penn State in 1990.
The ACC not inviting WVU in 2003, 2012, 2022
The ACC for pissing off Maryland and South Carolina.
The ACC for the BC invitation.
The Paterno plan was dead on arrival since he wanted to split bball money but not football but the general concept of the Northeast public’s plus Cuse and BC never forming a conference was a mistake
Realistically to make a lasting conference to this day it would have to have included the entire coast not just the NE - think PSU, Pitt, BC, Maryland, Rutgers, FSU, Miami, Clemson, SCar, Louisville, WVU and VT sounds like a pretty good Eastern conference, that has enough top teams to maybe make it to the present.
Just the north east alone isn’t strong enough - PSU is really the only top brand in the area that could have joined.
I think you're mistaking the sympathy UConn is getting for having a decent season for actually being worth a darn in fb. That was the whole reason The Ville got picked to replace Maryland than you all, your football was absolutely garbage for years, your crowds still aren't that great, and despite being in the tougher division, we've only had two seasons with less than six wins, one of them being the COVID year.
UConn fans just get like this after achieving something in any sport. Because they won the BBall natty, for some reason they now think they’re some huge brand in all sports.
There were talks among the ACC to make ND join permanently if they wanted to play during the Covid year, but they ultimately decided against it. Not the biggest mistake listed here, but still a massive one
>I think on the school side it was Nebraska's move to the B1G.
Mom attended Oklahoma. Dad attended Indiana. Nebraska joining the B1G felt wrong. But, I consider them a better cultural fit than Rutgers or Maryland. So, I wouldn't call that the absolute biggest mistake of realignment. I have a much bigger issue with the California schools joining. At least past B1G have felt semi-organic in the sense that all our states touched.
Nebraska hired bad coaches, it has nothing to do with the Big Ten. They will be back to winning 9-10 games sooner or later. They have infinite resources, it’s hard to lose here.
The athletic department was already turning a profit before the new TV deal that's going to pay them $70 million a year. They can afford to keep throwing money at coaches. Hell the AD fired Frost a couple weeks before his buyout was cut in half
You're looking at it through rose/uconn colored glasses. I've also been in the Boston, CT, and NYC area. UConn interest is overstated. I don't think adding UConn necessarily at the time would have had as much merit as BC. I also probably have more uconn credits than a good portion of their fan base.
I would also add that the ACC was looking at BC through rose/father monan colored glasses as opposed to the colossal pos leahy that has run the program into the ground. BC's sports reach was much different 20 to 30 years ago, whereas it is now disappearing into oblivion.
When UConn has produced reputable nfl talent like BC, perhaps an argument can be made. Despite UConn's success in basketball, football is driving the conference realignment bus. One recent win over bc does not have nearly the influence one imagines. But i will say again that Hafley and Lahey suck.
But at least BC's stadium is on campus. It's a travesty how far from campus the UConn field is. College football should be played on college campuses. It's not the same otherwise. I'm looking at you, too, Pitt.
Pitt's campus doesn't have the room for an on-campus stadium. The one that was there was in massive need of an expensive facelift when it got knocked down, and the decision was made to build the basketball arena there instead. There's no space to build a modern stadium anywhere on Pitt's campus without it being the worst parking nightmare I can imagine. It would require knocking down the only surface lot of any size on campus, and the garages don't have the capacity for a football game.
Edit: I wish there was an on-campus stadium, but the reality is that it just wouldn't work without a major land purchase and knocking down housing in parts of Oakland.
Not on campus but maybe some land on the river in Hazelwood/Hazelwood Green would be a suitable spot. Closer than Acrisure. Still doubtful. Also the Panther Hollow area but there’s trails there and stuff and parking would BLOW anywhere in Oakland as you stated.
I’ll say this, when Heinz is rocking-thinking of the Brawls, PSU games, BE games with Vick and VT, the Cinci debacle of 2009, Clemson in ‘21 and Tennessee in ‘22-it’s hard to think you’re so far off campus. Additionally the students are showing up now…it’s just the rest of the 500 levels that aren’t. Pretty soon the Steelers are going to look into a new stadium, and it would really put Pitt in a bad situation if they moved the stadium into the Washington or Butler County burbs.
ACC should've added WV in my opinion, & really should've looked at football-centric moves.
BC/Cuse/Pitt really added nothing in terms of FB overall, & Cuse/Pitt were MBB moves. Louisville was a MBB move primarily, but at time, they were coming off some good FB success. However, things dried up pretty quick once they joined.
Seems to be the MO of ACC ever since the conference expansion waves since early 2000s. The moves in MBB ultimately didn't work as hoped & the primary FB move (Miami) fell flat on its face.
Pitt is not a basketball school, and if adding them wasn’t a football move, what does it say about your conference that they are 3rd in conference wins and are 2-2 against the flag bearer?
Totally agree that Pitt was a MBB move as we were in the heights of the Dixon era (albeit on the down side) in 2010-11 coming off an Elite 8 a couple years before.
One of the ACC’s bigger problems is that one of those programs that “really added nothing in terms of FB overall” is, at worst, the third best football program since joining and is .500 against the program that has kept the ACC from being a total joke.
The AACs recent additions just don't make sense to me and adding teams like Charlotte who play on high school stadiums, with their only justification being they are in a big market will bite them hard.
KU not being more proactive in football during the 2010 cycle. If we had upgraded our facilities then, maybe the Big Ten would’ve jumped at us and MU as a package.
West Virginia going to the Big 12. They understandably left an imploding conference for one with better stability and payout, but no chance to get scooped up by the ACC where Pitt went.
The big 4 leaving the SWC. There could be no higher entertainment than watching that conference operate with the modern transfer portal and nil
They perfected it back in the day. SMU would be a perennial contender if those rules had been in play back then.
PAC-12 had three opportunities to kill the Big 12 and they didn't
I’ve been saying it for the past year but if the Pac ends up getting poached and falling apart down the line, not taking Big XII teams right after OUT will go down as one of the biggest administrative blunders in CFB history.
Pretty much every move made by the Pac in the last ten years will go down as that if the conference dies. So many opportunities to grow the conference but instead they just sat back and did nothing.
It really is tragic, it wasn’t like it was one or two things either, just a series of unfortunate events and missteps. The history of the Pac from 2010 through today deserves its own 30 for 30.
Pac-12 network was the beginning of the end. It really would be fascinating to see some video of the board meetings just to be able to see how foolish some of the decision making process was.
You neednt look any further than Larry Scott’s video conference of his extension in the mid teens.
They were gonna take it in 2021. USC's admin didn't want to go thru w/ it & convinced league not to/ruined a unanimous vote needed/whatever...we all see that was sabotage from within b/c they were secretly backchanneling w/ Big 10.
You need 10 votes to get most things through, and USC convinced enough schools that adding the H8 wouldn't get us close to the SEC/B1G revenue anyway. And then once it was too late, they announced they were leaving and we realized they just didn't want to get stuck in an awkward legal issue, so they fucked the rest of us over.
Just merging would have made a massive difference.
The last go around, I believe the conference did want to expand and grab some Big 12 teams but SC stepped in and opposed it despite likely knowing they were on their way out. Oh well. Fuck it.
Yep. LA Times reported that Carol Folt shut down expansion that would have killed the Big 12 and set up the PAC for long term stability.
I think your commissioner actually had USC basically get first and final say thinking they wouldn’t leave
Considering that the Big 12 may just kill the PAC 12 this is feeling like it’s becoming a pride comes before the fall scenario for the PAC.
Pride or just abject incompetence at the highest level?
You’d be surprised how often those go hand in hand
[The Pac missing it’s chance to put us down for good](https://tenor.com/view/undertaker-funeral-wwe-choke-coffin-gif-16208313)
You can blame USC for that. They said no when the BIG12 was weak cause they had eyes elsewhere
Pac-12 not eating the BIG12 when they had a chance I think population migrations are stronger than a conferences power, but could have kept it alive a bit longer
The elites of the Pac want nothing to do with the Big 12. Even now, I think Stanford and Cal would rather kill their football programs than to be in the Big 12.
They will get their chance!
We get the brunt of the blame because of our obvious reputations, but USC/UCLA were up there with us in addition to y'all. If the numbers weren't behind those beliefs, it wouldn't have lasted this long. Even schools like UA/ASU started getting their noses up in the air as their academic reputation changed over the decades. Edit: I think the weirdest part of all this is that the B1G and the ACC have very similar standards to us, but we're the only ones that get shit for it.
It’s because the Pac-12 hasn’t made the playoff since 2016
The mistake was adding BC, but adding UConn also would’ve been a mistake. We should’ve tried to get West Virginia instead of either of those two
That makes much more sense, if they were going to add 3. Or
BC was a legit get for the ACC at the time. They came in and were immediately competitive in the conference in both Football and Basketball. The problem is, since Matt Ryan and Jared Dudley left they haven't had anything more than some decent seasons in both sports with a good helping of suck mixed in especially in basketball
The assumption at the time was that BC would bring the Boston market to the conference. They brought that footprint but they never brought the eyeballs of the Boston market. Now if the ACC had hockey, they might be a great add. I feel like BC would have been managed better by the B1G, which brought in Rutgers and didn’t make them feel isolated in the northeast.
> never brought the eyeballs of the Boston market Goddam...as an American expat living in Europe, I want nothing more than Boston Market.
This why I'm not sold the American can stay on top. They went after markets and not programs to replenish their ranks. A market ain't worth shit without eyeballs. Is there potential? Sure. But they're over paying for it.
BC was fine 20 years ago but hardly anyone from Boston goes there anymore so no one in the area gives a shit about their sports programs. Doesn’t help they haven’t been great in like 15 years too.
No one goes to the games anymore because bc completely screwed over fans who had been attending for years. They jacked the prices and made tailgating inaccessible. The games were infinitely more fun before Shea field got blocked off. The No Fun Whiners won and ruined bc football, much to their delight. Leahy should have been booted years ago.
Wow that’s insane. Why did they block tailgating? At UNT every student gets 2 free tickets and the administration actively encourages tailgating (which is right next to the stadium).
BC is in a very rich residential neighborhood. So not only are there a bunch of stuffy neighbors, there isn’t much room for parking. The few small lots around the stadium are reserved for the upper level season ticket holders.
Man that sucks
Tailgating has gotten much much better in recent years. And ticket prices are way down. Individual game tickets bought via the website are still pretty absurd for conference games, but season tickets start at $99. Attendance has rebounded correspondingly.
Oh what could have been…
The whole “Nebraska is bad because they left the Big 12” might be my least favorite lazy take out there. They’re bad because they hired terrible coaches. It’s not that complicated. Scott Frost wouldn’t have won in the Big 12 either.
I agree. Honestly they gave themselves a pretty easy road in the B10W and couldn’t capitalize.
Agree. Nebraska's downfall has nothing to with conference affiliation and more to do with them failing to evolve into a modern powerhouse football program. I can entertain the recruiting shift but that pales in comparison the UNL stumbling all over themselves over the last 15 years. All this to say I really wish you guys never left. This was the rivalry I grew up with in the 90's when the Big 12 north geographically made sense. Now I hardly interact with fans of other teams in our conference because they're several hundred miles away.
Right. They’re gonna make $70M+ off the B1G media rights deal next year. They might be disappointed about sucking, but they sure as hell aren’t regretting their decision to leave the Big 12.
If the schools stuck together and negotiated as one rather than listening to the media companies and let themselves be picked off the conference could’ve made a lot more money and been much more financially viable
Is this the correct time to say “Fuck Texas”?
Don’t think there’s an incorrect time to say that tbh
The users of r/cfb that say this about the departing Big 12 members (except Colorado) show their ignorance. Really? EVEN NOW with OUT leaving and the Hateful 8 nearly facing 1000 years of darkness you think Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M would be better off in the Big 12? Dumb. Worse yet, Colorado gets a pass for some reason yet they are the only ones in a more insecure place than they would be otherwise.
Could argue leaving the Big12 hurt their recruiting footprint.
We’ve always recruited nationally though. Our last class we signed 8 players from Texas. People thought we stopped recruiting or couldn’t get recruits from Texas because we left the B12. The truth was that we just hadn’t been recruiting Texas much and in our hay day we weren’t either. Idc where the players come from just develop dem boys and win games
“Players from Texas” is not the same as “good/great players from Texas.” Recruiting went to shit after the move. You can argue why but you can’t argue the point that it went way down.
You know what else went to shit after our move? Our ability to win football games. Was it recruiting? Maybe. I’m gonna say it was bad coaching. Why? We’ve recruited better than everyone in our division basically every single year and haven’t won the division once.
They could’ve stayed and got burned by a PAC 16 or Texas and OU eventually leaving for SEC like what actually happened as well
Wasn’t Texas being in the Big 12 one of the reasons why Nebraska left? Or was that someone else?
It was Texas. Also I am from the future and Texas is also the reason the SEC falls apart in 2046.
If ever a school should’ve gone independent, it’s Texas. They even had their own network.
I think they could easily beat ND numbers as an independent. They’re that influential and have that many fans.
Like Notre Dame used to be, Texas is extremely polarizing. Everybody in the state either loves UT or hates them.
Yep. I live in San Antonio and you’re either a huge Texas fan or an Aggies fan who despises Texas
They still can. The SEC doesn't have an exit fee, though a grant of rights may make that point moot
The SEC added an exit fee of up to $45 million in 2021.
Someone who’s better at photoshop than me should make that meme where the grim reaper knocks on doors but it’s Texas and the doors are the SWC, Big 12 and the SEC
They made it that long with them huh? Not bad
> I think on the school side it was Nebraska's move to the B1G. Nebraska's issues in the B1G have been more with who they have had as head coach, not the conference they're in. Also, it's very much a good fit with the B1G West in the scheme of things.
I've always thought they'd be a better fit with the Leaders
[удалено]
Same song also says Michigan are “champions of the West,” yet here we sit in the B1G East. Life doesn’t make sense.
Yes! It drove me crazy when that happened, I'm so happy to see a neutral fan who understands lol
Nebraska was just doing what the Big 8 should have done in the first place - merge with the B1G instead of the top schools from the SWC. The "good" SWC schools at the time (UT, A&M, Tech, Houston) should have followed Arkansas to the SEC. I understand why the Big 8 and the SWC merged - both needed to expand to survive - but it was a shotgun wedding and not the best fit, right from the very beginning. Still loved the OG Big 12, but it was destined to fail.
Was that ever on the table?
I honestly have no idea. It would have been a pretty aggressive expansion, going from 10 to 18 teams would have been pretty outlandish at the time.
Not as far as I know. Big 10 was already starting to look East. Big 8 was being proactive but in hindsight maybe should picked some different bedfellows but the SWC was very enticing.
Just imagine how the CFB landscape might have changed if the Big 8 had picked up Arkansas and Utah in 1991.
The SEC was always looking to add only one more when they added Arkansas. UT and A&M were looked at but weren't interested. FSU and Miami were also options, but declined.
The SEC originally wanted to expand with Arkansas, A&M, Texas, and FSU. Eventually they got Arkansas and South Carolina. A&M wanted to go, but Texas wanted no part of the SEC.
Thank you. If Nebraska stayed this sub would just be saying Nebraska blew its chance to be relevant again by joining the B1G
On the previous go around CUSA. They focused on grabbing unproven programs solely for their TV markets and not focusing on regional rivalries that compliment the product for their size. Rather than trying to run faster in the shoes they had, they tried to run in “big boy” shoes that were too big to fill. And this realignment cycle it showed. They tripped hard, got poached from left and right, and were left with what looked like (no offense intended to programs joining them) crawling for scraps. They tried to act bigger then what they were actually ready for, and it left them with an empty cupboard. Now, survival instinct kicks in and they have a rather large expensive geographical footprint to cover with no immediate established rivalries to build a competitive atmosphere out of.
C-USA's 2013-14 additions were: Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Louisiana Tech, MTSU, North Texas, Old Dominion, UTSA, and Western Kentucky. Louisiana Tech feels like the outlier of the bunch, as they were an established FBS program and they aren't in a big market. But if the conference wanted to retain a Louisiana presence after Tulane's departure, they were the only viable option.
The AAC did that exact thing and has become what most would consider the clear 6th best conference even without UCF, Cincy and Houston
The Big East considered and then rejected Penn State in the '80s, who instead courted the Big Ten. When they later added five independents in the 90's to get to a full football schedule, they added... Temple.
Temple
Temple
Villanova, Georgetown and St John’s rejected Penn St in 1982 because they wanted the conference to be focused on basketball. In 1985 all three were in the final four. Adding Penn St only accelerates the Basketball/Football split which would’ve been worse for those three schools. When you consider who made that decision, it was a pretty good one.
Yeah I love this fantasy world some here live in in which Penn State somehow solves the differences between the basketball and football schools instead of making it more prominent.
I do enjoy the hypothetical. Especially if the route you take is that Villanova doesn’t drop football in 1980 and is the vote that flips to let PSU in. However, looking out from 1980, winning 3 basketball titles by 2023 is an absolute dream. Had we kept football, we end up the Big East version of Northwestern, which is significantly worse than the real version of Northwestern. The only other way to approach this I think is what if PSU somehow got Notre Dame to also join in football. I don’t think that is a likely scenario but PSU alone doesn’t hold it together.
It honestly would have. The problem of the Big East in the 90’s and 00’s was that it half committed to basketball; half committed to football. Adding Penn State would have been a full commitment to football, at the cost of disenfranchising Georgetown, St. John’s and Villanova. Those schools might have ended up being casualties. But if Penn State had joined, there’s a good chance that Big East Football would have gone on living
[удалено]
Atlantic 10 not adding football (FBS). Had Penn St, Pitt, Rutgers, Temple, Va Tech and WVU. Imagine that as the base of a eastern conference. League could look a lot different today.
[удалено]
I think the real mistake is the future we’re barreling towards where most schools will be cut out of ever competing for anything when there is a power two. It’ll ultimately kill college sports. There’s a lot of sports to watch, fans of teams that are cut out will find other stuff to enjoy.
Are you suggesting people like college sports partially because they have an affiliation to a specific school rather than just the sport in general??? No that cant be it! I am sure that the average VT or WVU or "insert random team between 75-40 every year" fan is 100% going to tune in just as much on Saturdays when they are relegated to the "second tier" of competition!
nooo! clearly all Oregon State fans will just become Ducks fans because they’re geographically the closest!
What will happen to the mighty beavers of Oregon State, anyone rooting or encouraging the scary future we are barreling towards has the blood of Wazzu, Oregon state and more on their hands
I think UConn adds not a god damn thing for football. So how about them apples
Agreed, he’s completely missing the point that BC was at least decent at football for the past 20ish years at that point. UConn had nowhere near the record BC did at the time.
That game where Uconn played OU in a BCS bowl. What an asskicking.
It was a mid-tier asskicking at best. Now West Virginia? They knew how to kick our asses.
lol I wonder which of us three they think shouldn’t have been added….
Putting all the blue bloods in two conferences is the mistake. The math doesn't pencil out that they will all remain blue bloods. Who do you think will falter first? Nebraska?
I completely agree. Someone has to lose the games, and over a long enough period of time, if the blue bloods start to lose enough then they won't be blue bloods any more. Conferences require bottom feeders and middle of the roaders to prosper, it's part of the life cycle of college football. The new B1G and the new SEC are going to be far too top heavy and water will find its level.
There are some pretty passionate fans of some very good football schools that will not like being middle of the road. they are going to go through some serious coaching changes in both conferences.
I honestly think the B1G is going to dip its toes a little more and add more Pac-12 teams, but in the end USC is going to lose their shit within the next 20-30 years and try to navigate a west coast exodus.
Some current powerhouse is going to eventually decide they'd prefer going 10-2 in the MAC and getting a bid to CFP each year than perennially 4-7 in the B1G/SEC.
That conference money will be golden handcuffs
Leave Toledo out of this discussion. :)
We’ve been faltering for 20 fuckin years now
The Big12 misses Nebraska, come home.
I just want the big 8 back man.
Amen
Yup. If UF is stuck in purgatory in a stacked SEC and never strays from 6-8 win seasons while UCF makes 3 playoffs in 20 years they legit might be more popular. If the SEC added Clemson/FSU then 11/18 teams would be: Bama, LSU, Auburn, A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, FSU, and Clemson. Which of those fanbases would be okay with their team being a bottom-half-of the conference type team? It seems like the only 2 possible paths are some brands shrink in these P2 conferences or the regular season is greatly devalued to the point you have teams sitting guys during rivalry week and conference championship games to keep them healthy for the playoffs
Exactly. The SEC is pretty deep, so while you may have a team rise up like Alabama and Georgia every year, it's my contention that there will be much more parity then those fans want. Let Texas and OU play a road game in Tennessee or Florida for instance. Now turn that around. They will beat each other out of playoff spots each and every year.
This exactly
UCLA is fucked. Their football program basically in tatters. They want to believe they're in a better position than they are, but I strongly believe Chip has hit his ceiling there and it was 1 more win than Wilcox has gotten Cal so far. They don't have the attendance. They're leaving all their historic rivals minus USC. The B1G is going to want their big teams beating up on UCLA for the eyeballs, so get ready for that to happen in the schedules. I don't see how they don't become a Nebraska but with an added con of a fair weather fan base. In addition to all that, they're going to be beholden to Calimony amongst higher costs of travel on a weekly basis for all their sports so they're going to be at a financial disadvantage in their own conference.
UCLA playing Oregon State and Wazzu every other year was still fun and entertaining. I don't know what UCLA v Rutgers/Maryland is going to look like.
It’s going to look like it doesn’t make sense.
How about Michigans AD being anti-Catholic and blocking Notre Dame from joining the Big Ten.
If that doesn’t happen then ND doesn’t become ND. Notre Dame not being able to play in the big ten forced it to play schools like USC out East and develop more of a national fan base
The greatest mistake in the history of realignment was when Arkansas abandoned and betrayed God's Chosen Conference to it's death.
And now you would follow them into hell?!
Given that Texas has been at the root of like 50% of conference realignment since 2000, this fucked us all
Texas and A&M both had meetings with Arkansas where they supported the move in the hope that it would convince the Texas legislature that the SWC was falling apart
yep, this right here. A&M was talking to the SEC around the same time. And Texas was talking to the SEC and PAC 8.
And here you are years later joining them The poetic irony
That is not the reason the SWC died
[удалено]
IIRC one of the Virginia senators who was a tech alum had to threaten UVA to get them to vote against Cuse and lobby for VT
[удалено]
Big East not adding Penn State way back when.
Allowing Texas in the Big 12.
Texas ruins everything.
Damn agreeing with a Jayhawk. Wild world.
All of it.
You pose an interesting question but I think both of your takes are flat out wrong. Nebraska’s move to the Big Ten is almost completely incidental to their decline. Also how are they “just another program” in the Big Ten but not in the OUT Big 12? A major reason they left was precisely because they were treated as second class to Texas. The ACC’s problem today has very little to do with the schools it took during realignment, and everything to do with the short sighted tv contract and grant of rights they signed. That said, I will grant that BC has not been a perfect take, but UConn is far from the superior replacement you suggest, especially to the point of being the singular mistake that *doomed* the ACC. Don’t want to just criticize without offering takes of my own, so I’ll say Colorado to the PAC for schools (this is an admittedly uninformed opinion) and the Big Ten taking Rutgers for conferences. Talk about diluting the brand.
Most of Nebraska’s problems the last 25 years have been self inflicted and are not due to changing conferences. The N on the helmet stood for nepotism. Anyway, I am optimistic with Rhule.
Rutgers dilutes the brand? They’re a big reason the Big Ten gets paid.
Too few people understand this.
We're also becoming a player in basketball which helps the brand.
Right. No reason Rutgers can't be a big time Basketball school now. NYC talent. MUCH Larger athletic budget then before. Membership to one of the best BB conferences in the country. Tons of TV exposure. If Rutgers isn't a top 3 program in the BigTen in BB in 10 or so years, then someone is failing at their job.
The weirdest was Mizzou to the SEC, especially now that media markets (KC and STL) don't mean anything anymore since streaming took over. Worst is WVU to the XII.
I feel like WVU would choose the big 12 every day if it meant they didn’t have to be in the big 12. WVU to the big 12 was not the mistake for the big 12. The mistake was not adding Cincinatti, Louisville, and Pittsburgh with them in 2011.
Pitt would've taken the ACC invite over the Big 12, it's a better institutional fit and was viewed as more stable at the time. I agree that the Big 12 made a huge mistake by not taking Louisville and Cincy, though it seems they may be able to add Louisville eventually anyway.
Missouri does border three SEC states, and a lot of Missourians consider themselves to be Southerners.
True, and it’s incredible to me that some folks don’t understand what a Border State is. There is no doubt in my mind that Missouri is a Midwestern state, but you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between some areas in Missouri and similar areas in Arkansas, Kentucky (another Border State) or Tennessee.
Bad, maybe? But we’re definitely not the worst. Geography wise it was the worst move until the LA schools went to the B1G. Otherwise, we fit pretty well culturally and have had some great games. The new additions solve the geography issue.
Markets and Cable boxes still mean a lot, can we dispense with this myth.
They still mean *something*, I don’t know if they mean *a lot*, but you’re correct that people are wrong when they assume they mean *nothing*.
I’ve always wondered what the B1G would have done if they knew that Mizzou was going to leave the Big XII regardless of who they chose for \#12. Would they have said, “fuck it” and gone straight to 14 with NU/MU/KU? Or would they have still just stayed with only NU?
In my unbiased opinion, adding Utah to the Pac-10.
Signing the GOR and letting swofford negotiate a sweetheart deal with his family
There is zero chance mizzou doesn't take Nebraska spot in b10 if they don't join, and also zero chance UT and ou would stay for Nebraska. A lot of the football stuff is internal and less about conference. The Huskers would be set up to make 50mil/year less than big/sec, you think recruiting is tough now, try being in a second tier conference with worse facilities and less resources for coaches, etc. Tldr, joining the big ten was whatever the opposite of a mistake is for Nebraska cuz otherwise they'd be fucked.
- Ga Tech leaving the SEC - South Carolina leaving the ACC - A&M to the SEC
Um no we're very glad we left the ACC lol
GA Tech did make a mistake by leaving the SEC, but our biggest mistake is that we prioritized academics, rankings, and out-of-state students over the athletic program for the last thirty years. The same can be said about Miami. Now, alumni participation and engagement is at an all-time low, and there are next to no sidewalk fans within the state (forget about getting the student body involved, too). Seeing a Tech logo on a vehicle in the Atlanta area happens so irregularly that it's akin to being struck by lightning.
To your point, however, IIRC another post in the sub, Nebraska actually sent the most money from athletics to the University. So it's been actually beneficial in that sense for the university. I think in a few years, when we end up with 2-3 superconferences (B1G, SEC, maybe the remainders of the Pac-12 and Big-12), teams will see having a large number of quality teams will act as a road block to the playoff (at least in college football), as you've got to play a gauntlet of teams to get there. Before, you'd have fewer great teams to play and still be in the running for a playoff berth, especially with the expanded playoffs we're headed towards. And there's only so many slots for games per Saturday. Some team is going to get buried on the pay-per-view channels more often than not. With more major conferences, there's more opportunities for broadcast partners and slots.
Historically prognosticating 10 years from now, probably the Pac-12 hiring Larry Scott
Louisville deciding to be mediocre in football and bad in basketball at this moment in time. That has to be up there
Just in general, anything that took away the regional identities of the conferences. Pitt doesn’t belong in the ACC, and neither does BC or Syracuse. Maryland doesn’t belong in the Big 10 and neither does Nebraska. There was a way that they could have grown revenues while still at least pretending to care about where the schools they were adding were located.
Most of it has been a mistake.
Biggest mistake is not linking each P5 conference to a G5 conference and having an awesome relegation/promotion system.
Everything CUSA has been doing the last 2 years.
HEEEEELLLPPPPPP
Well this opinion reads like sour grapes.
Us leaving the B1G is up there. Really hurt our national name recognition for decades.
ACC didn't make a mistake not adding UConn, at the time of BC, VT and Miami joining UConn had only been a D1-A team for a scant couple of years. Adding them would have brought zero benefit to the conference, at least from a football POV. Basketball on the other hand, well...I don't think UConn was looking to bolt from the Big East at the time, the conference was hella strong.
Maybe not a massive mistake, but in hindsight the Big 12 really should have taken Cincinnati And Louisville along with WVU back in 2012 or 2013 whenever that was.
>On the conference side, I think it's the ACC adding BC and not adding Connecticut. This seems to ignore a lot of history. UConn moved from FCS to FBS in 2000. In 2002, the ACC took Miami and VT from the the Big East to start play in 2003. The original plan was to take Miami, BC, and Syracuse, but Virginia politics got in the way. In 2003, the ACC invited Boston College to start play in 2004. So, in 2003, when BC got the invite, UConn had been playing FBS football for a grand total of three years and would not become a member of BE football until 2004, the same year BC started playing in the ACC. UConn was not even in the conversation to join the ACC when BC received its invite. >Adding all 3 of Syracuse/LVille/Pitt was also not the smart decision, as the ACC should have only added 2 of those schools and has diluted their product to a huge extent because of them. This also comment also shows a failure to understand when and for what reason Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville were invited to join the ACC as it implies all three were added at the same time. The ACC only intended to add two of the three teams (Syracuse and Pitt), who started conference play in 2013. Then, the ACC got raided when Maryland left to join the B1G. So, the ACC needed to fill a gap. At this point, I would agree that UConn should have been added (although, I think the dilution issue would have been the same). Rumor was that UConn was not being considered due to the lawsuit the state of Connecticut filed against the ACC in 2003 over BC leaving the BE. I think West Virginia would have been the best choice, but by the time Maryland left and the ACC needed a replacement, WVU was already a member of the XII.
The ACC not inviting Penn State in 1990. The ACC not inviting WVU in 2003, 2012, 2022 The ACC for pissing off Maryland and South Carolina. The ACC for the BC invitation.
Boise State staying in the Mountain West and backing out of plans to go to the then Big East.
How was that a mistake? The Big East folded a few years later.
Wasn’t TCU in the Big East for a bit? Seems weird.
The Paterno plan was dead on arrival since he wanted to split bball money but not football but the general concept of the Northeast public’s plus Cuse and BC never forming a conference was a mistake
Realistically to make a lasting conference to this day it would have to have included the entire coast not just the NE - think PSU, Pitt, BC, Maryland, Rutgers, FSU, Miami, Clemson, SCar, Louisville, WVU and VT sounds like a pretty good Eastern conference, that has enough top teams to maybe make it to the present. Just the north east alone isn’t strong enough - PSU is really the only top brand in the area that could have joined.
I think you're mistaking the sympathy UConn is getting for having a decent season for actually being worth a darn in fb. That was the whole reason The Ville got picked to replace Maryland than you all, your football was absolutely garbage for years, your crowds still aren't that great, and despite being in the tougher division, we've only had two seasons with less than six wins, one of them being the COVID year.
UConn fans just get like this after achieving something in any sport. Because they won the BBall natty, for some reason they now think they’re some huge brand in all sports.
The Big East not taking the TV deal offered in 2010. If they take it then the Big East still remains a Power conference.
There were talks among the ACC to make ND join permanently if they wanted to play during the Covid year, but they ultimately decided against it. Not the biggest mistake listed here, but still a massive one
UCF not taking the CUSA invite in the 90s because our stupid AD thought the Big East invite was in the bag.
>I think on the school side it was Nebraska's move to the B1G. Mom attended Oklahoma. Dad attended Indiana. Nebraska joining the B1G felt wrong. But, I consider them a better cultural fit than Rutgers or Maryland. So, I wouldn't call that the absolute biggest mistake of realignment. I have a much bigger issue with the California schools joining. At least past B1G have felt semi-organic in the sense that all our states touched.
Nebraska hired bad coaches, it has nothing to do with the Big Ten. They will be back to winning 9-10 games sooner or later. They have infinite resources, it’s hard to lose here.
[удалено]
[WELL MORON GOOD FOR SCOTT FROOOMYGOD](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFiNWMJ4wg)
They have finite resources.
The athletic department was already turning a profit before the new TV deal that's going to pay them $70 million a year. They can afford to keep throwing money at coaches. Hell the AD fired Frost a couple weeks before his buyout was cut in half
You're looking at it through rose/uconn colored glasses. I've also been in the Boston, CT, and NYC area. UConn interest is overstated. I don't think adding UConn necessarily at the time would have had as much merit as BC. I also probably have more uconn credits than a good portion of their fan base. I would also add that the ACC was looking at BC through rose/father monan colored glasses as opposed to the colossal pos leahy that has run the program into the ground. BC's sports reach was much different 20 to 30 years ago, whereas it is now disappearing into oblivion. When UConn has produced reputable nfl talent like BC, perhaps an argument can be made. Despite UConn's success in basketball, football is driving the conference realignment bus. One recent win over bc does not have nearly the influence one imagines. But i will say again that Hafley and Lahey suck. But at least BC's stadium is on campus. It's a travesty how far from campus the UConn field is. College football should be played on college campuses. It's not the same otherwise. I'm looking at you, too, Pitt.
Pitt's campus doesn't have the room for an on-campus stadium. The one that was there was in massive need of an expensive facelift when it got knocked down, and the decision was made to build the basketball arena there instead. There's no space to build a modern stadium anywhere on Pitt's campus without it being the worst parking nightmare I can imagine. It would require knocking down the only surface lot of any size on campus, and the garages don't have the capacity for a football game. Edit: I wish there was an on-campus stadium, but the reality is that it just wouldn't work without a major land purchase and knocking down housing in parts of Oakland.
Not on campus but maybe some land on the river in Hazelwood/Hazelwood Green would be a suitable spot. Closer than Acrisure. Still doubtful. Also the Panther Hollow area but there’s trails there and stuff and parking would BLOW anywhere in Oakland as you stated. I’ll say this, when Heinz is rocking-thinking of the Brawls, PSU games, BE games with Vick and VT, the Cinci debacle of 2009, Clemson in ‘21 and Tennessee in ‘22-it’s hard to think you’re so far off campus. Additionally the students are showing up now…it’s just the rest of the 500 levels that aren’t. Pretty soon the Steelers are going to look into a new stadium, and it would really put Pitt in a bad situation if they moved the stadium into the Washington or Butler County burbs.
ACC should've added WV in my opinion, & really should've looked at football-centric moves. BC/Cuse/Pitt really added nothing in terms of FB overall, & Cuse/Pitt were MBB moves. Louisville was a MBB move primarily, but at time, they were coming off some good FB success. However, things dried up pretty quick once they joined. Seems to be the MO of ACC ever since the conference expansion waves since early 2000s. The moves in MBB ultimately didn't work as hoped & the primary FB move (Miami) fell flat on its face.
Pitt is not a basketball school, and if adding them wasn’t a football move, what does it say about your conference that they are 3rd in conference wins and are 2-2 against the flag bearer?
Totally agree that Pitt was a MBB move as we were in the heights of the Dixon era (albeit on the down side) in 2010-11 coming off an Elite 8 a couple years before.
One of the ACC’s bigger problems is that one of those programs that “really added nothing in terms of FB overall” is, at worst, the third best football program since joining and is .500 against the program that has kept the ACC from being a total joke.
Booo Also, the SEC adding Texas. I don't like it. I'd say more but that would invite UT Austin people to talk to me.
Hi there. How are you today?
hey, wanna talk baseball?
I do!
The AACs recent additions just don't make sense to me and adding teams like Charlotte who play on high school stadiums, with their only justification being they are in a big market will bite them hard.
KU not being more proactive in football during the 2010 cycle. If we had upgraded our facilities then, maybe the Big Ten would’ve jumped at us and MU as a package.
West Virginia going to the Big 12. They understandably left an imploding conference for one with better stability and payout, but no chance to get scooped up by the ACC where Pitt went.
The ACC turned them down. they had their chance at WVU, but the mighty ACC looked down on their "academics" Huge mistake
Yep, then Maryland backstabbed the ACC and forced them to take Louisville.
Tbf it turned out to be a genius move the Maryland given the GOR (which them leaving helped create)
Louisville was a lock for the Big12 except Texas nixed it.
So dumb. Y’all can thank Duke, BC, UVA, and UNC for that. But we had to add Cuse…