A rumored ACC settlement and deal...
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
I read a bit more and the "Under League" proposal is that the bottom 8 are relegated every year. That's total BS and is another deal killer for those schools. Relegation/promotion in that league should be for the bottom 2 schools only. Any more than that and the churn creates chaos for everyone involved. The super league looks like it was dreamt up by an 8th grader.
With SDSU not mentioned I'm guessing they've looked at their most recent on field success. They haven't done too well the last couple of years. UNLV has had one successful season as of last year. So in terms of relegation/promotion I'm guessing the last season is what they looked at.Those rumors were out a couple weeks ago. It basically resets conferences to where they were 20+ years ago with a few tweaks and changes. I read that the SEC and B1G are opposed to the proposal which means that it's already dead in the water. We'll see if that changes though.
Here's one rumored version that's a little different:
Some quick thoughts. No way that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't part of the "Plains" Division. Utah and BYU would be in the Southwest Division instead. SDSU will not be left out with UNLV included. The "Midwest" division isn't going to have Cincinnati instead of Penn State even if the geography makes better sense. No way that the SEC allows itself to be gutted and merged with the ACC and then split apart the way shown. So...again...probably never going to happen.
The ACC, Big 12 and all of the Group of 5 teams are so undervalued by the media compared to the B1G and SEC that this thing is dead already. But hey...it's fun to imagine WSU and OSU being relevant again.
This is such a crock of shit. Anyone with a keyboard can spread these "rumors". Funny how no reputable sports news media have reported any of this.Those rumors were out a couple weeks ago. It basically resets conferences to where they were 20+ years ago with a few tweaks and changes. I read that the SEC and B1G are opposed to the proposal which means that it's already dead in the water. We'll see if that changes though.
Here's one rumored version that's a little different:
Some quick thoughts. No way that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't part of the "Plains" Division. Utah and BYU would be in the Southwest Division instead. SDSU will not be left out with UNLV included. The "Midwest" division isn't going to have Cincinnati instead of Penn State even if the geography makes better sense. No way that the SEC allows itself to be gutted and merged with the ACC and then split apart the way shown. So...again...probably never going to happen.
The ACC, Big 12 and all of the Group of 5 teams are so undervalued by the media compared to the B1G and SEC that this thing is dead already. But hey...it's fun to imagine WSU and OSU being relevant again.
Canzano is usually pretty good and often accurate but it looks like he is just trolling for clicks.
This is blatantly ridiculous on so many levels I’m not even sure where to start. There’s zero chance of this even being remotely considered. The Big 10 & SEC have the disproportionate money they’ve always wanted, they’re not going to give it back. They only care about regional pairing to the extent that it helps them defend their financial position.Those rumors were out a couple weeks ago. It basically resets conferences to where they were 20+ years ago with a few tweaks and changes. I read that the SEC and B1G are opposed to the proposal which means that it's already dead in the water. We'll see if that changes though.
Here's one rumored version that's a little different:
Some quick thoughts. No way that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State aren't part of the "Plains" Division. Utah and BYU would be in the Southwest Division instead. SDSU will not be left out with UNLV included. The "Midwest" division isn't going to have Cincinnati instead of Penn State even if the geography makes better sense. No way that the SEC allows itself to be gutted and merged with the ACC and then split apart the way shown. So...again...probably never going to happen.
The ACC, Big 12 and all of the Group of 5 teams are so undervalued by the media compared to the B1G and SEC that this thing is dead already. But hey...it's fun to imagine WSU and OSU being relevant again.
I will bet whatever amount of money you would like that the Huskies will have more than that.
It really doesn't matter what amount of money is bet. What matters is that the muttsky betting will most certainly fail to pay what he owes. Morality and following the rules is for other people to worry about, not uw supporters.
The funniest thing is where you are getting those from lists us with 2 or 3.
10 of MIchigans titles were from before black people were even allowed to play. When is the last time Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, etc. etc. have even been nationally competitive? Hell, Nebraska has barely been relevant in these kids lifetime.
Mutts still have 1/2 of a championship in the past 100+ years and are still 0-9 in the past two decades against B1G teams with winning records. It's a pity that you can't schedule Indiana, Purdue and Illinois exclusively.
No F-ing shit. Me too. Post or start a thread about the Cougs, guys. And quit spewing out every dumb internet "rumor" about realignment that some dipshit throws out there as if it is gospel.
Actually, I think the funniest thing is your refusal to respond to my questions.
Are you disavowing the Jim Owens era at uw?
I don't think anyone thought it was gospel. FWIW, the super league rumor is Coug related in the fact that it would enshrine us as a permanent top tier member (well, until the next change anyway).
You couldn’t have walked into this one any better. Replace Nebraska with UW and fast forward 10 years. You’ve almost got this figured out! Good boy!!
Yeah there’s way too much ego flying around to get all of the conferences in agreement on a change of this magnitude. Think about what a no brainer playoff expansion was and it still took eons to come to an agreement on that. This will never happen.
There’s not a program out there that can’t envision a 2-3 year flop, getting booted out of the top tier, and the stress of trying to get back in going up against transfer portal and NIL. Alabama, Michigan, Texas, Florida, Notre Dame…all have had their shit years and it can always happen again.
FWIW, the proposal protects the top 70 teams from the relegation discussion. The "bottom" 50 teams are the ones that would have to deal with that fight. I think everyone knows that there is no way in hell that any team from the SEC, B1G, ACC or Big 12 would be willing to accept any risk of relegation and the proposal reflects that.
Frankly, what would make the most sense is to have all 50 of the other teams just compete for the highest rated Group of 5 champion spot like they do for the NY6 games and not even have relegation as part of the discussion.
Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia has pretty much almost never had a shit year, and probably won't have a shit year, and if they do have a shit year, it won't be 2,3 shit years in a row that would get them relegated.
Michigan, Texas, Florida, Clemson, FSU, Notre Dame, LSU, Auburn, Penn State, Oklahoma, etc, are just not at the same highest level of Ohio St, Alabama, Georgia, and are capable of 2 shit years in row, and getting relegated.
Also there is a big difference between having 2 shit years in a row and having the bottom, worst shittiest 2 years in row out of all the teams, and getting relegated because of it.
That might happen to Notre Dame, Michigan, Penn St, Auburn, Florida, Clemson, etc, but that wouldn't happen to Ohio St, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas,
But yeah, ego, and being scared of the possibility, no matter how unlikely, would shoot the idea down.
You are incorrect, absolutely. The one site that I looked at listed the uw with 1 title, which was in 1991, which was a split title with Miami. That means you actually had .5 of a title. I will try to find that site and list it again, but in the meantime here is another site that confirms the .5 for the uw. Maybe there will be more. BTW, here is a hint for you-any claim to a national championship that is on a uw propaganda page but not listed anywhere else does not count.
Who Has the Most National Championships in College Football? | BestColleges
The real team with the most college football championships hasn't brought home a title in nearly a century. Find out which teams have the most wins and who's considered the all-time champ.
www.bestcolleges.com
https://collegefootballnews.com/ran...onal-champions-who-won-the-most-championships
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/college-football-champions
BTW, while you are bragging about how great the uw is and how they will thrive in the BIg Ten, check out this chart showing the top 40 schools with the most NCAA team championships. You will see that there are 9 PAC teams on the chart, with the uw, WSU, and OSU the only schools not listed. #2 is UCLA, #3 is USC. There are ten (10!) Big Ten schools on this list, all of which the uw will be competing against every week. Good luck, sap. I'm sure that your beloved mutts are right on the cusp of totally dominating their new conference. LOL
You are incorrect, absolutely. The one site that I looked at listed the uw with 1 title, which was in 1991, which was a split title with Miami. That means you actually had .5 of a title. I will try to find that site and list it again, but in the meantime here is another site that confirms the .5 for the uw. Maybe there will be more. BTW, here is a hint for you-any claim to a national championship that is on a uw propaganda page but not listed anywhere else does not count.
Who Has the Most National Championships in College Football? | BestColleges
The real team with the most college football championships hasn't brought home a title in nearly a century. Find out which teams have the most wins and who's considered the all-time champ.www.bestcolleges.com
https://collegefootballnews.com/ran...onal-champions-who-won-the-most-championships
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/college-football-champions
BTW, while you are bragging about how great the uw is and how they will thrive in the BIg Ten, check out this chart showing the top 40 schools with the most NCAA team championships. You will see that there are 9 PAC teams on the chart, with the uw, WSU, and OSU the only schools not listed. #2 is UCLA, #3 is USC. There are ten (10!) Big Ten schools on this list, all of which the uw will be competing against every week. Good luck, sap. I'm sure that your beloved mutts are right on the cusp of totally dominating their new conference. LOL
The funniest thing about UW "dominance" is the fact that they've finished ranked in the AP #25 a total of six times in the past 22 seasons. They have three Top 10 finishes in the past two decades....one less than us.....LOL. The truth is that the Huskies do have the resources to be successful if they get the right coach in place and that coach finds the right QB....just like any other school. They were shite in the three years before they had Penix and they were middle of the Pac-12 North before Browning played well in 2016.
So, in fairness to the mutts, they could be good at times. That said, in the three decades since the RV salesman left, they've only had four Top 10 finishes...so history suggests that they are likely to have one really good team just over once per decade in the Big 10...and that's assuming that the Big 10 isn't tougher on them than the Pac-12 was.
The NCAA and the networks realize that a super league of 48 programs is too small of a pool. The remaining 250 programs will band together and chart their own course.
The drive behind the Super League are the heading off the coming law suits, political pressure, common media and union [NIL] negotiations, and the nagging notion that it makes so damn much sense. The formula would enable the Ohio st. Texas ND Alabama's to make more money than anyone else. The commissioners of the SEC, BIG, Big 12 will not want to give up the power, but may have to, depending how this plays out. It will be interesting to see how the P2 commissioners counterpunch this idea, without looking like greedy assholes, killing off so many schools. ESPN and FOX will measure the income from tight regional rivalries (Texas vs. Baylor) as opposed big brand games (Texas vs. LSU) for instance. The conversation is not going away. Does it happen...who the hell knows.
Can't agree with your last idea. Networks are all about the big brand games. Michigan-Texas, Ohio State-Oklahoma, USC-Alabama, etc. Regional rivalries are a distant 2nd in their eyes. The big games bring national attention and national audiences. They're banking on those bringing 10-20M viewers. The regional games bring 5-10M...maybe.
There were only 4 games last season that crossed the 10M mark, and 2 of those were the Big 10 & SEC championships. The other 2 were Ohio State-Michigan and Colorado-Oregon (Penn State-Ohio State and Ohio State-Notre Dame were just shy of 10M). The networks want more of those - matchups of nationally relevant teams every week, so they've got at least one pseudo-championship caliber matchup to sell adds on for 18 straight weeks.
A matchup of Texas-Baylor may be attractive regionally, but wasn't even in the top 50 most viewed games in 2023 - which means less than 4.5M viewers. Even Apple Cup was better than that, at 5.85M.
