Dogfrog
Active Member
ESPN and Fox have no interest in research. They are driving the train.
Zona to Big 12 heating up
- Thread starter The Bad Guy
- Start date
Prince of Purpoole II
Reigning Smartarse
Be that as it may, BY got it done. With the wrong commissioner the B12 could easily be outside looking in
Skobuffs85
Active Member
Oregon fans believe they’re rich enough that they don’t need anybody and they’ll stay in the pac 12 for that reason.
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
I believe you may have missed part of the post exchange or maybe my writing is the pits.
The B1G’s #1 goal is ND. ND would like to retain their 34 game rivalry with Stanford.
The B1G’s recruiting of ND is one of the reasons they may have interest in Stanford.
Yes, Stanford would likely go indy before coming to the B12.
Skobuffs85
Active Member
I hate fake insiders and the people who give them a platform by gobbling it up. Everyone knew Colorado to the B12 was a possibility last year and it really heated up in February. This ass clown says in April, Colorado will vote in a handful of days. Our AD called him out as a nobody with nonsense information.
Then at the end of July Colorado does decide to leave and he’s doing a victory parade about how he was right. And people are eating it up! Morons.
CountryFrog
Active Member
Awesome.
So today, if Stanford calls up Northwestern and says let's do some medical research then Northwestern just says "no, sorry, we only work with our Big Ten brethren?" Is that what you're telling me?
It's great that the schools in the Big Ten do stuff together but I highly doubt they're limiting themselves to only working with each other. If they want to have an academic partnership with Stanford and vice versa then the logo on their respective football fields isn't going to get in the way of that.
And furthermore, if the conference affiliation really did get in the way of that and all these Big 10 brass value all that academic stuff so highly then why didn't they invite Cal and Stanford instead of USC and UCLA? Or at the very least in addition to those 2 schools?
CountryFrog
Active Member
Do you seriously believe that if Notre Dame wanted to join the Big Ten that Stanford being in the PAC would be the thing holding them back? The biggest brand in college football not acting in their own interests because of their friendship with the school that cares more about women's swimming than football?
Also there are things called non-conference games so Notre Dame would still be free to play Stanford for as long as they'd like regardless.
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
What I said was ND would like to keep their 34 year rivalry, and that may be one of the reasons the B10 has some interest in Stanford.
How the hell you managed to misconstrue that into what you just wrote must have required one helluva brain fart.
CountryFrog
Active Member
Not sure how you're not seeing the connection I made here since it's based on everything that you're saying. You're insinuating that the Big Ten believes they might have a better shot at Notre Dame if they bring on Stanford. Is that correct?
So flip that around to Notre Dame's perspective and ask yourself why, if you're a decision maker at ND, would you give two [ Finebaum ]s about what conference Stanford is in as it relates to whether or not you might want to join the Big Ten. If and when Notre Dame wants to join a conference it will be for their own internal financial reasons and it won't stop them from playing Stanford or whoever else they want to play.
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
Yes, Notre Dame would like to retain it’s rivalry with Stanford.
Do you seriously believe ND would put a team on it’s out of conference schedule that beats them 40% of the time. Yes, it would very much help ND to put both USC and Stanford on a conference schedule.
Non-conference schedules are for cream puffs not Stanford and USC.
Missing the CFP 40% of the time with an out of conference loss to Stanford would not go over well.
This is what you’re saying ND should put on their out of conference schedule. Is that correct?
CountryFrog
Active Member
The Stanford thing reminds me so much of all the people who were talking themselves into why the Big 10 actually had a huge interest in adding Kansas because their basketball program would make them sooooo valuable to that conference. And yet what did we see the Big Ten do. They got the most valuable football program that was available to them in USC and then doubled down on the LA market by adding UCLA to get to 16. They could've gotten Stanford then and chose not to.
This stuff is like 80% about football, 15% about adding new markets, and then 5% about whatever other sports and academic stuff you want to throw in there. There's a reason why the PAC has been a sinking ship for the last decade and it's because of all the dead weight they have in the form of Washington St, Oregon St, Stanford, and Cal. If Stanford and Cal were such valuable entities then the PAC would have a much brighter outlook.
This stuff is like 80% about football, 15% about adding new markets, and then 5% about whatever other sports and academic stuff you want to throw in there. There's a reason why the PAC has been a sinking ship for the last decade and it's because of all the dead weight they have in the form of Washington St, Oregon St, Stanford, and Cal. If Stanford and Cal were such valuable entities then the PAC would have a much brighter outlook.
CountryFrog
Active Member
Wait. I'm confused. At first you were saying that Notre Dame would really like to keep playing Stanford but now you're saying that would only be the case as a conference opponent because they would probably be too scared to play them in the non-conference?
And this is the thinking that you believe the Big Ten is putting into their alleged wooing of both Stanford and Notre Dame?
Deep Purple
Full Member
Rationale makes sense, but calling them "travel partners" makes about as much sense as calling a modern car a "horseless carriage." I thought the term "travel parnters" was as obsolete as portable transistor radios.
Deep Purple
Full Member
$10 billion in research grants is legally earmarked for specifically designated research projects. None of it is transferable to athletics. Whereas $1 billion in media money is $1 billion their athletic programs wouldn't otherwise have.
This has very little to do with research and much more to do with academic snobbery.
McFroggin
Active Member
Think of it more as an elective collaboration. They aren’t sharing funds across the board or negotiating together as an entity. When you write a grant proposal, most of the time the Big10 alliance doesn’t do anything. You won’t share the money.
If you are doing a large project that needs certain equipment or multiple sites, you may reach out to other AAU or Big10 schools to join your project.
That said, if other schools aren’t interested or don’t have enough variable sites, you still bring on non-Big10 partners to get the research done.
Research can be highly variable. Some research at Michigan may not be happening at any other Big10 school. You’ll have to look elsewhere for sites.
This academic alliance is more like the Big10/PAC football alliance. You schedule some things together and try to put together good “match-ups” to bring more $ and successful grants. That said, each school wants to win the most grants for themselves. You will easily still deny cooperation if it hurts you and build partnerships elsewhere if it benefits you.
Limey Frog
Full Member
I posted this in the other thread, too: per Scheer on Wildcat Authority, Pac 12 schools have a "show us hard numbers today, or else" type meeting scheduled for Tuesday. I trust his sources on that, so I'm sure you'll see that confirmed elsewhere if it hasn't been already. What happens next and how soon I don't know, but if Kliavkoff had nothing to show Colorado a week ago last Thursday he is highly unlikely to have anything better to show tomorrow.
I'm guessing that Yormark will have a busy but satisfying week in the office.
I'll say it again. It's so refreshing to have proactive rather than reactive leadership. BY's foot must be sore cause he has kicked tires from coast to coast. he and the leadership from our institutions are really doing good work.
NF
82 Frog Fever
Active Member
Jason Scheer is the man on UA sports. He got torched by the PAC propaganda machine for months, and now that he has been fully vindicated, he’s firing back hard.
That‘s exactly what’s needed, we are gonna lose O & W if this drags out.
Over the last few days O & W has been negotiating with both the B12 and Pac9
O&W now has great leverage over the other PAC teams with the B12 on the scene.
- They are considering staying in the PAC and becoming the OU/Texas of the PAC
- They stay in the PAC, keep the other teams together, add a few teams (SMU etc.) to get back to 10/12, and get a $20m media deal.
- They retain P5 status, as no one would leave O, W, & UU out of that club.
- As the price for their staying they will negotiate (dictate) all the other 8-10 members to kick 10% to O & W
That’s $8-$10m each to O & W
- In addition they dictate that all CFP and bowl money is not distributed to the conference, but directly
to the teams that actually play in the games. That amount is still tbd, but likely $6-$8m
- This is important, because staying in the PAC, O & W can nearly guarantee a 9-3 or 10-2 season as worst case. That puts them in the top 12 CFP nearly every year.
-Total money to O & W would be $34m-$38m, and they can make sure the GOR is only 3-5 years, and they would be the Dictators of the Conference.
Almost looks like extortion. Man, CFB is a cutthroat world.
Last edited:
Prince of Purpoole II
Reigning Smartarse
Yep. I made no bones about what I thought of the previous commissioner. Somebody made a damn good hire here
I am all for getting to 16 but wish we had not been so anxious in grabbing Cincy, UCF and Houston, nothing against those schools but better options are now emerging and I know its 20-20 hindsight. Having said that I want nothing to do with any California schools as that state has already infected and partially ruined Texas.
