Academics don’t drive this. If they did, then Stanford wouldn’t be stuck in the low paying ACC at 1/4 shares, and would be in the B1G ahead of lower ranked Oregon.
Markets don’t govern this the way that they used to. Too much cord cutting. If the Bay Area mattered, then why are its FBS football brands either not in the P4, or only in the ACC at 1/4 shares? Hint: because the P4 doesn’t care that much about that market, and in any event, that market doesn’t strongly support college teams… Stop thinking in 2012 cable carriage fee terms. The conditions that got Rutgers and Maryland in back then simply don’t exist today.
See my previous post. Stanford has NEVER influenced ANY conference move by ND, and there’s no reason to believe it will in the future. It’s simply NOT a thing. ND and Stanford have NEVER been a package deal, so would people think anything to that effect today? There’s simply no reason to.
The B1G also knows good and well that most of Stanford’s alums and donors don’t give a crap about football and men’s basketball, and that for that very reason, Stanford is poorly equipped to take advantage of either NIL or the transfer portal. It’s probably the MOST poorly equipped school to take advantage of the new JUCO eligibility.
So if that’s the best that you can come up with, then no.
I have a feeling…that unc is indeed going to exit the acc along with clemson, fsu, miami and others much sooner than anyone can expect. What we know for sure is to be expect the unexpected.
You have been debunked every time uhlaw. Learn from your mistakes. Andrew Luck going there is not to orchestrate a children book reading club. He has been hired as a MANAGER. He was not hired to be a pool cleaner.
I’ve also been correct more often than 1927, who claimed that the Big 12 was the most unstable conference, and that UH should look to move to the more stable PAC instead for that reason.
I called BS on that, arguing that the opposite was true, and was proven to be 100% correct.
The PAC was the least stable conference, and the Big 12 more stable than either the PAC, or ACC.
So in a realignment dispute between yours truly and 1927, past history suggests that the good money is on me.
Eugene isn’t Portland metro. It’s designated as a small metro area of its own.
USC and UCLA got in because their brands made up 40% of the PAC’s media value. It was about brand size not markets.
Rutgers and MD got in when markets were a thing; both would likely not be invited today.
None of those bump ups were to the B1G. Those BRANDS, not markets were big enough for the P4 and Big 12, but NOT the B1G.
Being in big markets hasn’t prevented Temple, Rice, or USF from being DEMOTED from the big time (all were previously in major conferences), nor will their markets get them back in.
And I’ll point out that we got paid to join the cool kids lunch table, because we are cool, while SMU, not being cool, PAID the cool kids to let them sit there.
Again, the ACC’s expansion situation isn’t the same as Big Ten’s future expansion plans
Academics absolutely do matter depending on the conference. The Big Ten still value academics otherwise both FSU and Clemson would already be in the Big Ten. Stanford wasn’t going to join any other conference other than Big Ten or ACC because they value their academic reputation by being in an academic conference
Markets do still matter, but it’s not black and white. As I said above, the SEC doesn’t have to rely on nationally spread out markets because they have the best brands in the best region alone. The Big Ten does have to rely on markets in order to compete with the SEC for future media deals. UT alone will likely bump up the SEC media deal higher than the Big Ten come next media negotiations
Notre Dame values its rivalry with Stanford because of its prestige, and Notre Dame had a hand in making sure Stanford got into the ACC. Also, who else is the Big Ten going to add? Other than UNC or Virginia (who are both likely SEC-bound), there’s literally nobody else to get the Big Ten to 20 schools
Does every school in the Big Ten have major donor support for football, or is just the top half of the conference? Stanford isn’t being added to dominant football. They would be added for their market, Olympic sports, and their contributions to the conference’s research money
uta is the most over rated program in the nation. Their record speak for itself. By having a huge brand does not mean you are a good team. Sure they were in the cfp last year and this year but how many players did they buy to get there? They have consistently been one if not the top recruiting program in the nation for decades but with what results?
Stanford is AAU, but that won’t be enough. If it were then they’d already be in. For that matter, Cal likewise has outstanding academics; that simply AIN’T enough by itself.
That market hasn’t been of any interest to any power conference except the ACC at 1/4 shares. That’s 49ers territory; college sports attract little interest.
I have FIVE ND graduate cousins. None of them give a flip about Stanford. If having way bigger rivals like USC, Michigan, and Michigan State isn’t enough to make ND join, then it’s rarefied to imagine that a far smaller and less valued rival like Stanford would. ND likely will join the B1G eventually, but Stanford won’t have anything to do with that decision.
I can assure you that even Illinois has more fan support for football and basketball than Stanford. Stanford would be LAST PLACE in B1G attendance in both major sports. VERY poor support. When a team joins for an Olympic sport, it’s generally as an affiliate in ONE sport, like JHU in lacrosse. NO team joins the B1G as an all sports member for any Olympic sport. The B1G won’t add a program that dilutes their football and basketball brand value. A conference that already has a lot of parasites is NOT going to add another.