Jump to content
  • Image

USC and UCLA to the Big 10


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, GreenFlag said:

I think you are a little off base there.

I think winning is the important thing as long as you aren't playing bigger brands.  Do you really think Tulsa and Tulane are going to put more of our fans in Apogee?   Are Temple and South Florida moving the needle in Denton?   Navy might be the only team we MIGHT see each season (depending on whatever conference scheduling the new AAC adopts) that puts a few extra buts in seats.  What kind of attendance bump do you expect that independent of us winning.?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dannymacfan said:

I hate what they are doing to the game.  There was a tradition and they've ruint it for everyone involved now.

Way more detrimental long term than NIL.  I already watch less CFB that doesn't involve a team on UNT's schedule.   We might be getting Longhorns vs Aggies back but it won't be the same.  Also the time is quickly approaching that stupid arguments for 3 loss SEC or Big 10 team get into the 4 team playoff are made.  Baseball killed itself for decades as an elite cartel if a few running the sport killing competition in board rooms before spring training.  This is very Reminiscent of that.  The elite are gathering buffer schools around them in conference to make the competition look somewhat legitimate.   Meanwhile 60% to 75% of these P5 conference schools won't ever be mentioned in 4 team playoff talk for the next 20 years by the midpoint of any given season.  🤷🏽‍♂️

Edited by Mike Jackson
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

Next to almost certainly happen:

Clemson, FSU, and Miami to the SEC.  I'd also bet that ND is Big 10 bound too.  This will set off the next massive wave of realignment over the next 18 months.  

 

Then those are longer conferences imo.  I certainly won't be interested whatever garbage criteria they use to come up with a conference champion let alone shoe horning a 4  loss UT team into the playoff.  You won't have schedule that really fairly determines who best in the conference on the field with no subjectivity. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Status quo and moving up are different things. Like backing into a Bowl with 5 wins, or having one created and braging about the number of Bowls a coach takes a team to

Disagree. I’ll take all of those things over not being in bowls and being in sunbelt or Cusa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike Jackson said:

I think winning is the important thing as long as you aren't playing bigger brands.  Do you really think Tulsa and Tulane are going to put more of our fans in Apogee?   Yes, they are a more attractive opponent than Arkansas State or Southern Miss. Are Temple and South Florida moving the needle in Denton?   No, they aren't. Navy might be the only team we MIGHT see each season (depending on whatever conference scheduling the new AAC adopts) that puts a few extra buts in seats.  I see what you are trying to say but let's look at who we played against 10 years ago vs who will be our conference mates next year. There is a big difference, or at least I think so.

Ark State vs. Memphis

ULM vs. Tulane

UL vs. SMU

Troy vs. UAB

FIU vs. USF

MTSU vs. Rice

WKU vs. UTSA

USA vs. Tulsa

Anyone we shared a conference with vs. Navy

I see every New Denton opponent as more of a draw over Old Denton opponents.

 

 

What kind of attendance bump do you expect that independent of us winning.?

Do you really think Tulsa and Tulane are going to put more of our fans in Apogee?   Yes, they are a more attractive opponent than Arkansas State or Southern Miss.

Are Temple and South Florida moving the needle in Denton?   No, they aren't. 

Navy might be the only team we MIGHT see each season (depending on whatever conference scheduling the new AAC adopts) that puts a few extra buts in seats.  I see what you are trying to say but let's look at who we played against 10 years ago vs who will be our conference mates next year. 

There is a big difference, or at least I think so.

Ark State vs. Memphis

ULM vs. Tulane

UL vs. SMU

Troy vs. UAB

FIU vs. USF

MTSU vs. Rice

WKU vs. UTSA

USA vs. Tulsa

Anyone we shared a conference with vs. Navy

How much increase? I don't know, 1-2k maybe? It's a lot better for sure but it certainly doesn't fix our attendance by itself.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MeanGreenTeeth said:

It's interesting that Washington and Oregon aren't included.  Those schools do pretty well in terms of revenue and would make sense from a travel perspective for the California schools.   

Oregon is the surprise to me with the Nike connections

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dannymacfan said:

I hate what they are doing to the game.  There was a tradition and they've ruint it for everyone involved now.

This kind of thing *is* the tradition. It started in 1996 when the Southwest Conference was murdered.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Big 10 will move to add Kansas, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington.

Remaining PAC schools will be poached by Big 12.  ACC will lose FSU, Clemson, UNC, and VT.

Then the maps will get redrawn at the G5 level.

Whatever remains of the G5's should (but they wont) work together to regionalize as much as possible and reduce cost. We mostly focus on Football, but it cost a lot to move all of the other teams around also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GreenFlag said:

Do you really think Tulsa and Tulane are going to put more of our fans in Apogee?   Yes, they are a more attractive opponent than Arkansas State or Southern Miss.

I respectfuly disagree.  I will give you Arkansas State is a step below.  But to local fans I think Tulane=Tulsa=Southeren Miss.  At least Southern miss had Brett Farve.  

Now if you are talking trips to away games vs those teams, absolutely better experience for our fan going to New Orleans area and Tulsa.  But that wasn't the point being made. And most fans that travel to away are already coming to Denton regularly for games as long as we aren't playing a FCS team.  

 

We might get one conference game vs Memphis before they leave-- and based on recent conference buy out news 99% certain it is just a game fullfilling the non-conference game contract we already had.

My summary is here to save you some time

  •   Comparing teams we never shared a division with ones we do now isn’t an apples vs apples comparison.
  • if the team we “left behind” are achieving more since we left them kind a silly to tout getting them off the schedule as beneficial to attendance at Apogee any undefeated top 20 ranked G5 in a late season match up is going to  ramp up the attendance at Apogee

MTSU we didn't play them every year in CUSA.  And I don't think it is accurate assessment to lump in UL and any other team we left behind in the Sun Belt when we moved to CUSA.  And ironically UL bigger national splash after "we left them behind"

Google "ragin' Cajun football ranked"

Then Google "Mean Green Footall ranked"

Troy vs UAB - that is a push, they are in the same state.  One shutdown their  program for a couple year not related to Covid the other one is Troy.  

WKU vs UTSA - yes UTSA is better. Also not a fair comparison because since the Sun Belt days they've been in another Divsion.  So we didn't add UTSA by moving up to AAC.  We "lost" WKU coming to Denton every 3 to 4 years?

FIA vs South Florida - neither of them drawing Mean Green fans Apogee in their infrequent visits.  South Florida unquestionably the better brand but only for TV audience imo.  “North Texas vs South Florida” has a nice symmetrical sound to it.  
 

USA (assuming you mean South Alabama) vs Tulsa.   Well I don’t think that we were ever looking at being in a division with South Alabama and playing them annually.  We only shared the Sun Belt Conference at the FBS level in 2013.  So is it fair to say we “left them behind” when they never really caught up? 
 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike Jackson
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom McKrackin said:

I think some of you, not all of you, need to step forward and admit you were very wrong about wanting UNT to join the Mountain West.  When USC and UCLA leave the Pac 12 will have to find replacements from the Mountain West which will further water down that conference.  Also AAC was very smart to pick off all the viable Texas teams and leave the Mountain West without any of the good ones.  I don't see any of the Big 12 teams being interested in a PAC 12 without USC or UCLA>

 

You're reaching. Everyone who advocated joining the MW was speaking of joining that conference as it stands, and them losing teams would obviously change how people felt about joining. Most of us also felt with SMU in the AAC they wouldn't want to add another team in the same metro, we saw our chances of joining as slim. None of us were privy that 6 teams would be added, we all assumed it would be 3 to replace what they lost. 

 

Did we pick the best scenario? At the time yes, we made a great choice to join the AAC. But if todays news turns out to be true, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we ended up making the wrong choice. 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GreenFlag said:

The Big XII will poach the PAC, not the other way around. I've paid close attention to that conference since I attended the football game against Cal and the 15K people who cared to show up. Now that USC and UCLA are gone, here is the list of good vs not so good properties. Attendance at the not so good's is abysmal.

Good: Oregon, UW, Utah, and the Arizona Schools.

Not so good: Oregon State, Washington State, Cal, Stanford and Colorado.

 

I see Arizona and Arizona State being poached by the Big XII.

 

 

 

Stanford is the #6 school in the country, Cal is the #2 public school. Even though you may be talking about football performance their prestige carries a lot of weight. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chomp said:

Wow! This is so exciting! What college football fan hasn't been dreaming of the day when players are paid millions by shadowy groups connected to schools, the players have no real connection or loyalty to the schools that they play for, and we can enjoy compelling league matchups like UCLA-Rutgers and USC-Purdue!

While there has always been greed in college football, it is poetic justice that it is the over-the-top greed of the SEC and Big Ten that will kill the game in the end.

Players have been getting paid for decades.  Only difference now is that its out in the open.

  • Upvote 3
  • RV 1
  • Eye Roll 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

 

Stanford is the #6 school in the country, Cal is the #2 public school. Even though you may be talking about football performance their prestige carries a lot of weight. 

I'm talking athletes, not mathletes. Both are fine schools. My point is NOT NEAR ENOUGH PEOPLE give a crap about football there, not even themselves. It is truly shocking to see the apathy. Take a look at attendance each game for each school. Their attendance counters and the SMU attendance counter are cousins by the way. As far as butts in seats my guess is that both Cal and Stanford were under 25K for the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Prediction sure to be wrong - Big12 and Pac12 will merge 😈

I have the same prediction. They will merge and purge. The new conference will be Kansas, Baylor, Tech, KSU, Oklahoma State, and maybe Iowa State from the Big12 and from the Pac you will have Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State,  Stanford, and Cal. They may add 2-3 more from the 2 existing conferences but these 13 will be the core of the new conference. That is my prediction.

Edited by Cr1028
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kliavkof got done as dirty by B1G alliance partner as bowlsby by SEC. Only I feel he should have been much more able to see it coming seeing as there had been some rumors the LA schools were deeply unhappy for a while. Also, I wonder if he is finally starting to see why the originally proposed 12 team playoff model was good. No way his new look pac 12 is going to get an autobid. But now everybody who is not B1G or SEC may get a lot less. There is some irony in how his arrogant hard stance completely overplaying the Pac12s hand will now F him. He cost the bottom 8 conferences -including 10 of his 12 schools- a much better access to the playoffs, and the chance to do that is likely never coming back.

Edited by outoftown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.