1. Along the lines of your FSU comment, I also think Flugar repeated the disclaimer that USC and UCLA never talked. I find this one even more difficult to believe. We are just to believe that USC and UCLA were announced to have invites from the B1G and they were operating independently and coincidentally? Same city, shared rivalry, conference mates for a century? And they weren't coordinating? Sure, Jan. 2. I think when one conference "skims off the top" of a lesser conference, it becomes tempting to just keep the cream and not bother with the borderline candidates. Had the B1G taken USC, UCLA, UW and UO, no one would have thought anything of it. But now that the B1G already has USC, they are probably thinking "Do we really need UW and UO?" I think the ACC did the same thing when it took Miami. Had they taken Pitt and Syracuse at the same time, no one would have thought it was odd, and most everyone would have thought it was a power move. But when they went back for them years later, it just seemed like a "meh" addition. On this second point, that's why I think it is a mistake for the B1G to leave UW behind. I think they are good enough for the B1G. But when the B1G leaves them hanging out to dry, the UW brand is damaged. Ditto for the ACC-Pitt-Syracuse situation. My longstanding position is that the ACC should have taken all the Big East football schools en bloc, not piecemeal. And it should have taken West Virginia and even--gulp--Rutgers. I'll leave Temple out of it since they weren't a BB member of the Big East. I think if this had happened, the ACC would be in lot better place today, and we'd have even somehow kept Maryland ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 3/17/2023, 1:33:48 AM