I haven't seen it discussed here, but I don't see the B1G adding schools
that aren't AAU members. All the additions have been AAU members. I think that limits the ACC schools to UVa, UNC, Pitt, GT, Miami, Duke and ND. They added Nebraska and then Nebraska lost AAU membership. In part, it has something to do with medical schools or collaboration with medical schools and government research funding through NIH.
37 Replies
S
Stech
2y
I believe they don’t have a problem of not having it. You also must meet the other criteria too.
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
2y
There are no AAU "requirements" other than "get the votes."
People are extrapolating way too much from one comment by the Nebraska president when they lost AAU status.
(Although a medical school likely helps due to the high level of funded health care research. However, I think AAU is more about prestige than raw dollars—i.e., you'd be better off with fewer dollars and a couple world-renowned researchers than more dollars with no all-stars.)
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
they do seem to favor the medical school research with their votes IMHO.
I am with you on a lot of these rankings, they are somewhat of a racket to get money and power. Take the recent College Football Playoff rankings for instance 🤣, that fits the money and power model perfectly.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Clearly no inside information, but that was a rumor I heard at the time.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
US News has them ranked at 159, by far he lowest in the B1G. The next lowest is Iowa at 93. Nebraska in the B1G is like Louisville in the ACC.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 12/11/2023, 12:03:28 PM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
They are little more than a measure of popularity among the academics who participate in the surveys.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
collaboration with IU. It's more about medical research in my opinion. It's just that government grants from NIH are a big part of the reasons for being a "requirement"..........I believe that is what makes UNC an attractive candidate.
(In response to this post by Stech)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
S
Stech
2y
a certain amount of years.
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
I know VT's DO school is just affiliated with VT, vice being a VT run school. Doubt any research there gets added to VT's research totals.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
M
Marooned
2y
UNC and GT when the GOR becomes manageable.
Past history indicates that they are not focused so much on program success as on market size and AAU/academic fit. I don’t see them encroaching on the SEC footprint except for possibly Miami. The UVa/VT commitment is not something they would honor and they wouldn’t collude with the SEC to take one each.
Under this scenario, FSU and Clemson get jumped. The ACCremains relatively intact, albeit weaker. The SEC might look to expand to keep up, which would involve possibly NC State, VT/UVa or a further westward move with someone like Zona.
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
2y
every year. The Big 10 doesn't need a little brother in Georgia.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
S
Stech
2y
go to the B1G, they are a slight maybe for the B1G.
ND will move if they were to lose access to the Tier 1 College Football Playoff/National Championship. They have said that for decades, so keep an eye on the new Pay for Play Division and when it will happen, it will tell us most of what is going to happen in Conference Realignment.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
argumentative...just have heard that narrative in the past.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
2y
and Duke instead of UNC. I could see the SEC moving first to try and block any B1G encroachment into the SEC footprint.
I have no problem with VT in the B12. Land Grants like Iowa State, KSt., WVa and OkSt. are my kind of schools.
** Edited by vtdasc90 at 12/11/2023, 8:28:47 AM
(In response to this post by Tuckahokie)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...saying they want them?
They have considerably less research than VT, but were still invited. USC had about half the research of VT. ASU was the only school invited that had more research funding than VT, and they probably should have been invited in the last round of expansion. Hope that means VT will get the "Willy Wonka Golden Ticket" in the next round, but I'm not holding my breath.
Sands has this one mission to complete before he retires...lol
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
2y
what they bring in basketball.
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
2y
football that move the national needle that much.
They are looking at brands and national appeal. FSU has the brand. Clemson, while a very good program, brings regional appeal, and they don't bring the ratings when they are not in the top 10. Let's be clear - when a team is ranked in the top 5, it doesn't matter where they are on the brand totem pole. TCU brought in large audiences because their games had national championship implications. This last year, their ratings fell off. So did Clemson's.
This idea that there will be multiple teams going to the P2 from the ACC is insane, wishful thinking, and biased. There are only four teams in the ACC that may get invited. FSU, Clemson, UNC, and Miami. UVA will not get an invite. "Markets" and cable hookups are from the past.
I really hope VT gets an invite, but the networks will not pay that much money to a 24 team conference. It's not happening unless the BIG and SEC merge, and shed their weak brands.
Either the rest of us figure something out pretty quickly, there are going to be some really good athletic Universities playing in the G5 along with OSU and WSU.
It's time to look at the basketball brands - it is there I think the next move will be after the P2 completes their consolidation.
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
2y
Big ten wanted them both. Maybe that had more to do with needing west coast expansion to join USC and UCLA.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
conversation wrong. Some NFL consultant probably advised Swafford about adding BC because all of the households that would get ACC games if they had BC. They didn't stop to consider that no one is Boston cared about Boston College, so no one was watching in Boston and advertisers didn't care to spend money on that. Technically New York is the biggest state without CFB representation in P2, but that is a little different. New York also isn't a CFB type of state, but if you did want to capture it a mixture of Notre Dame, Rutgers, and a few misc Big 10 teams is the way to go. Past New York you are looking at North Carolina and Virginia as the most populous states without a P2 CFB team. They both have large public schools with CFB tradition/fanbases and both are pretty wealthy states. You do end up getting into the revenue per team problem. None of the schools in either state would increase the revenue per team in the SEC or Big 10, but footprint is important. The SEC might be the biggest brand now, but I don't think the SEC wants to live in a future state of CFB where the Big 10 controls the best brand in 3/4 of the nations geography and population. Then if the Big 10 suddenly swoops in and takes FSU/Clemson/Miami plus a North Carolina/Virginia school they are a national conference that is paying out far more than the SEC is.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
M
Marooned
2y
Then both the B12 and ACC are stable conferences. The trick is to stay competitive such that some programs will break through and become the bell cows that will drive viewership. In the new world of NIL, portal transfers and an expanded playoffs it is certainly possible, if not likely.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Do you not agree that it is advertisers selling their wares that is the genesis of the big money in CFB? Everything about this realignment is about markets and how to effectively sell stuff. Now to be fair, you may be using the term "market" like the old misguided "Bring the Boston Market." So if you are using it in the context of a regional/local team dragging the market to the advertisers, I agree that is gone (excepting ND). But a national marketing strategy with the advertisers and media only using the teams to get their national marketing advertiser/media message out there is very real. It is why the the high 9s are poured into CFB.
College football is no longer about intercollegiate competition aimed at college sports junkies. Now it is more "football entertainment" moving away from a structure like NCAA wrestling and toward the WWE "wrestling entertainment" grabbing couch potatoes who will buy what the advertisers are selling as the cool thing of the moment.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
fot a few teams, ND included, it's over.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
It is how each of the P2 and their associated media can get the most viewers, subscribers to buy stuff.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
D
daveinop
2y
they are, but they may also be behind USF in 10 years
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
Then B1G commish Kevin Warren said at the time that it is NOT a requirement
I don't see them turning down FSU due to no AAU.
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)
T
Truthahn
2y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Unsure if that is accurate or not, but it seems like some rules could be massaged in this era of mega expansion.
(In response to this post by vtdasc90)