quote:

Preyer told WRAL in March that the ACC was failing its top schools, including North Carolina.

"The conference is not acting as if it is representing the best interests of the member schools including the top tier of those schools - Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina," Preyer said.

"Instead, it is acting at the expense of those schools to prop up the bottom tier of the conference in a way that I think is a gross abdication of responsibility. And I lay that at the feet of the commissioner."

pillsburysoldier posted:

Judgy Fucker posted:

Don’t know anything about “nationalchamps.net” but if these are the odds to leave I’d say it’s a good chance the ACC stays intact as-is

drunk leprechaun posted:

I don't even have a weird blog I've been updating for decades.

clean ayers act posted:

West virginia to the BIG

Vertical Lime posted:

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1790414705816899591

Dance McPants posted:

long live the PAC2 After Dark on the CW

Komet posted:

Serious post, WVU brings a much bigger fanbase than UVA or much of the ACC that would be appealing to the Big Ten, and is a better geographic fit. The academic issue is a problem, especially in light of Gordon Gee's corruption. Big Ten membership could be a serious lifeline to the university and state, though.

Sash! posted:

My only real concern is that they'll undershoot the number of teams that they need.

You've got the Big Ten at 18 and chatter that puts them at 20. This also comes along with a general assumption that if you don't survive that round (the one that breaks the ACC), then you're out. That would peg the list at 40. That's roughly in line with the mid-30s league size that the pro leagues currently sit at but there's a problem here. There's only about 45 metro areas that can support pro sports teams in the first place. Colleges tend to serve state level markets and, in many cases, more than one per state. You can't chase the league size of the competition. I'd suggest a 54 team league. That allows you to keep the trappings like the top 25 (with 25 being less than half of the league) and reflect the nature of the sport as one that's not married to metro areas.

Henchman of Santa posted:

Do we know who's playing Week 0 yet?

Spacebump posted:

Making it a 54 team league will eventually be the death of the sport.

General Dog posted:

I’d prefer having better non conference games and eliminating the postseason altogether.

That or just have the “bowls” on campus the werk after championship week, before the portal opens.

Sash! posted:

I've thought that FBS should be sawed in half 20 years ago. 50 percent of teams are non-competitive, the next 25 percent is an occasional pain in the butt or "one hot season at best," and the top 20 percent can at least hang on with the top 5 percent. I've never seen a problem with actually acknowledging what we already know.

Spacebump posted:

The problem with that line of thinking is the non competitive schools change yearly. Yes there are a small amount of programs that are consistent but it is nowhere near 50%. We just went through a decade of Texas being mostly irrelevant. People need to stop pretending conference consolidation is about quality of teams. It isn’t, it is about how much money the logo on the jersey can bring to the conference.

Sash! posted:

Plus, "brand" and quality are inextricably linked. It is pretty tough to have a logo that people want to buy if you're hot trash. Even the worst of the western teams that the Big Ten brought in has the 37th best winning percentage. And that's Oregon!

A Sneaker Broker posted:

Colorado playing NDSU Week 1 on Primetime? Oh boy, get the popcorn.

Spacebump posted:

Now do Rutgers.

Also, all time win percentage is less relevant than win percentages by era, especially recent eras. Rules have changed too much, people running schools/ athletic departments change, etc.

Sash! posted:

Even "irrelevant Texas" was still head and shoulders above the teams I'm talking about.

There are currently 131 FBS teams. Of them, 41 have all time records below .500. You're already at a third of FBS that have proven, on the field, they're not competitive with their peers. When you start looking at the teams that have "all time" winning records, but the overwhelming majority of those games against non-FBS competition (Georgia Southern is in 21st place but has won 14 games against Power 5 teams all time and 10 were against UCF) or high winning percentages due to youth (UTSA isn't even old enough to drive and is barely above .500). You just need to find another 24 teams that do have all time winning percentages that aren't going to threaten to make big moves at some point and you're at half of FBS.

Plus, "brand" and quality are inextricably linked. It is pretty tough to have a logo that people want to buy if you're hot trash. Even the worst of the western teams that the Big Ten brought in has the 37th best winning percentage. And that's Oregon!

Komet posted:

What the gently caress is this:

https://x.com/GregMadia/status/1790745577233260679

Is this signalling some inevitability of UVA and/or NC State leaving the ACC or an incredibly stupid scheduling ploy to play a conference rival outside the ACC conference schedule.

I mean, I don't like that Penn State won't play Ohio State every year in the future Big Ten, but I also don't want Penn State to go out of their way to schedule Ohio State on top of their already brutal conference schedule.

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Im happy not playing OSU every year and in fact, being a massive coward, would like to stop playing them in favor of beating up on Rutgers, Maryland, and Sparty every eyar

Cthulu Carl posted:

Penn State vs. Ohio State hasn't had the same oomph to it since I got to brag to my Penn State fan dad that I got to see Joe Paterno poo poo himself in person.