Do Any Of You Miss The Old Conference Set up?

[Gatorchip]

I'm okay with change. Would like to see more marquee match-ups though.

 

[Rolltide94]

I could go with kicking out one of the Mrs. schools(can anybody tell them apart anyway) or Vandy and keeping A&M. I've grow to kind of like them and they dislike Texas too. Missouri can GTFO. In fact, you can have Arkansas back too...Scar I am ambivalent.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I agree 100%. And I think your explanation is exactly why the Big 12 stayed a 10 a couple of years ago.

In a streaming and fanbase world the only teams that aren't P5 that make sense in the future for expansion would be UCF or South Florida and in time some of the GA schools like Georgia State or Georgia Southern. The free tuition programs in those states have driven the enrollment in those schools through the roof and they have the potential for massive fan bases in the future if they drive interest in their programs.

Before that Cincinnati made a lot of sense because you got the state of Ohio and Memphis because of TN but in the cord cutting world I think those opportunities are over.

The Big 12 would have been much better off without TCU, Texas Tech and grabbing a Cincinnati and a UCF. They are just too saturated in one market and people outside the state don't care.

The future money in college sports is going to come through two avenues:

1. Network deals (for example when the SEC/CBS deal is up it will go from 50mm a year to close to 400mm a year) but that is based on the fanbase of the conference as a whole and ratings not geographic location.

2. The P5 schools break away from the NCAA and take over March Madness which would capture 1 billion a year that could be split up. People who don't think that will happen are naive and it's only a matter of time.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I could go with kicking out one of the Mrs. schools(can anybody tell them apart anyway) or Vandy and keeping A&M. I've grow to kind of like them and they dislike Texas too. Missouri can GTFO. In fact, you can have Arkansas back too...Scar I am ambivalent.

I don't think our ratings would be impacted if we went back to the traditional 10 as Bama, Auburn, UGA, TN and Florida drive most of the rating anyway. I think even without aTm we wouldn't be leaving that much cash on the table and every school would get a nice bump.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Odd I remember OU&Texas agreed to a deal with the pac, then Scott comes back and tell us the money not there - so Texas and OU see a deal they agreed to fall apart. Neither has trusted Scott again.
Texas never considered the pac again. I Believe OU talk to them once

Ou and Texas will always be in the same conference. To much money on the table for either of them to strike out on their own.

OU and Okie Lite asked to join the PAC. Scott said Texas had to be included. Texas said Texas Tech had to be included and the PAC agreed. Where it broke down was the LHN money. The PAC said it had to be shared and Texas said no and that was that. If Larry Scott had any brains at all he would have taken the two Okie schools which would have ended the Big 12 as a P5 conference.

 

[Wild Turkey]

OU and Okie Lite asked to join the PAC. Scott said Texas had to be included. Texas said Texas Tech had to be included and the PAC agreed. Where it broke down was the LHN money. The PAC said it had to be shared and Texas said no and that was that. If Larry Scott had any brains at all he would have taken the two Okie schools which would have ended the Big 12 as a P5 conference.

It was a stupid move on both the PAC and Texas' part. They should have done the deal and it would have killed the Big 12 and given the PAC new time zones for TV packages. Even OU and OSU would have been a good deal but I think Texas would have gone independent (which would have been a glorious failure) and sunk the Big 12 anyway.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

It was a stupid move on both the PAC and Texas' part. They should have done the deal and it would have killed the Big 12 and given the PAC new time zones for TV packages. Even OU and OSU would have been a good deal but I think Texas would have gone independent (which would have been a glorious failure) and sunk the Big 12 anyway.

Larry Scott should have been fired over that move. He blew it big time.

 

[Deep Creek]

In a streaming and fanbase world the only teams that aren't P5 that make sense in the future for expansion would be UCF or South Florida and in time some of the GA schools like Georgia State or Georgia Southern. The free tuition programs in those states have driven the enrollment in those schools through the roof and they have the potential for massive fan bases in the future if they drive interest in their programs.

Before that Cincinnati made a lot of sense because you got the state of Ohio and Memphis because of TN but in the cord cutting world I think those opportunities are over.

The Big 12 would have been much better off without TCU, Texas Tech and grabbing a Cincinnati and a UCF. They are just too saturated in one market and people outside the state don't care.

The future money in college sports is going to come through two avenues:

1. Network deals (for example when the SEC/CBS deal is up it will go from 50mm a year to close to 400mm a year) but that is based on the fanbase of the conference as a whole and ratings not geographic location.

2. The P5 schools break away from the NCAA and take over March Madness which would capture 1 billion a year that could be split up. People who don't think that will happen are naive and it's only a matter of time.

My millenial son-in-laws both think cord cutters are going to drive what happens in regards to entertainment via media sources in the future. (I don't understand all the technology crap.) They also "not so politely" inform me that not everyone is an avid college football fan. Many are casual college football fans. I "not so politely" inform them that people that AREN'T avid college football fans are idiots.

 

[tnapucco]

Nope.

I do miss when the media was an even playing field though.

 

[Neilcar]

It was a stupid move on both the PAC and Texas' part. They should have done the deal and it would have killed the Big 12 and given the PAC new time zones for TV packages. Even OU and OSU would have been a good deal but I think Texas would have gone independent (which would have been a glorious failure) and sunk the Big 12 anyway.

Everyone says Texas will go independent . . . But over the years Texas has always remained in their Conference. Years ago sec came to Texas and Texas said no. Texas also declined the B1g and the pac.
Hopefully you all will get the hint.

 

[BamaDude]

so do you miss it errrrrrrrrrrr?

I miss the days when Alabama was constantly playing home-and-home games with other power teams from across the country - which they are now getting back to doing - but I like our current conference alignment, for the most part. I think 12 teams is a better set-up than 14, but I am glad we added Texas A&M to the fold.

I don't think adding Rutgers & Maryland to the Big 10 was a good move, but the list of optimal candidates had been whittled down quite a bit by the time they made that move.

I wish the Big 12 would go back to being a 12-member conference.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

I miss the days when Alabama was constantly playing home-and-home games with other power teams from across the country - which they are now getting back to doing - but I like our current conference alignment, for the most part. I think 12 teams is a better set-up than 14, but I am glad we added Texas A&M to the fold.

I don't think adding Rutgers & Maryland to the Big 10 was a good move, but the list of optimal candidates had been whittled down quite a bit by the time they made that move.

I wish the Big 12 would go back to being a 12-member conference.

The SEC expanded to 14 teams yet stayed at 8 conference games. Pathetic.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

It’s all about populations and Virginia and NC are loaded.

Since cable is dying I’m not sure population of a state matters as much as fan base size now. It mattered before because you could charge a premium to all residents in that state for conference channels that had teams in that state regardless if they wanted it as long as they bought cable.

Cord cutting is killing that model so it gets a bit more interesting.

Oklahoma is now much more attractive than say a Missouri where they have 2 million more residents. Note success didn’t matter before and that’s why the B1G took Rutgers because it gave them New Jersey and brought the B1G channel package with them.

Conference expansion isn’t as black and white as it was 5 years ago.

Very USEFUL post. lol I just highlighted that because I went to give your post a "useful" rating and apparently that's not an option anymore? Whatever. But yeah, interesting twist about cable going to the wayside. The B1G also cares MORE about Research dollars than it does about sports money, the difference is BILLIONS compared to hundreds of millions. If it can get both, it would like that, and hence why they wanted Notre Dame and considered Texas, and are NOT interested in OU or say, UConn. I think they are considering Arizona St as a possibility. I personally am not a fan of expansion, but I also understand that for the good of a conference, and to stay competitive in the modern world, changes are going to happen, and I just hope when they are made, they don't backfire. Some might regret Nebraska being brought into the B1G, but as a Gopher fan, the fact Nebraska is not killing it, means now my Gophers can fill that void, with only our top 2 rivals standing in our way. And Nebraska is doing pretty good in alot of other sports. Rutgers? Well, it's nice when you don't have a hard core tough as hell opponent EVERY week, so I'm not so concerned about their decline since joining the conference. Maryland at least shows promise, and the addition of 3 only average or worse programs might actually have helped teams like Ohio St and Penn St and Wisconsin and Iowa and Michigan and Mich St look better than they otherwise would have? But it will be interesting to see how things play out in the future.

If the B1G HAS TO expand, I absolutely don't want Notre Dame, and don't want UT/OU, either. I don't think UNC/Virg will ever leave the ACC, and Georgia Tech just would seem like a horrible fit. I'm kind of leaning to a combo of Ariz St and USF or a Boston/Mass school. Personally I'd want both teams to have hockey or be willing to add it. I think USF could figure that out. USF is actually my #1 choice/option, and I like ASU because it'd be nice to travel to Arizona in November or anytime through the bb season as well. The Boston option I only like because of the population factor and every school up there plays hockey, lol. But Boston U is probably the only school with the academics, but it has no football. BC has the football, but crappy research situation.

 

[BamaDude]

The Pac-12 Stays The Pac-12, Says No To Texas

Excerpts from an article by Avinash Kunnatt on Pac-12 turning down Texas:

The Pac-12 has slammed the door shut on the Texas Longhorns, and by proxy the Oklahoma Sooners and Oklahoma St. Cowboys. It didn't even have to come to a vote. Texas refused to budge on the Longhorn Network, and the Pac-12 refused to budge on equal revenue sharing. The Pac-12 presidents and regents didn't want to take on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State without Texas [and Texas Tech], and they definitely didn't want to take on Texas with that giant albatross of ESPN Bevo. So things stay the way they are.

There won't be much argument around the Pac-12 schools that the conference made the right decision to keep things the way they are. Jeff Nusser of CougCenter had a very good viewpoint on the situation.

"The conference is a model of stability. You could say that hasn't always been a good thing because the conference hasn't been as aggressive as it could have been in the past, but in this case, I think leaning toward stability is wise. The ACC is panicking, so it struck first. The Big East is now panicking. The Big 12 is on the verge of either collapse or becoming some kind of zombie conference that will add a team or two that ultimately lowers its overall profile just to stay alive.

All the while, the Pac-12 just sits back and watches the carnage with everything it already wants in hand -- a football championship, an enormous TV contract, its own digital media network. Perhaps not taking on the football properties of Oklahoma and Texas puts the conference in a slightly weaker position a decade from now in media rights negotiations, but if that's the price to pay for not getting used like a cheap tramp by Texas until the Longhorns find a better deal, I'm all for patience."

In many ways, a Pac-12 and a weakened Big 12 work just as well as a Pac-16 and no Big 12. Oklahoma and Texas are now in the role that Pac-10 powerhouses USC once faced. They now have to run through their conference unscathed to get to BCS title games, or face oblivion. Meanwhile, the Pac-12 will have the extra game via the conference championship to break any tiebreakers with the Big 12, and will now move right up with the Big Ten in challenging for football national title spots on a yearly basis.

Funny how that "enormous TV contract" pales in comparison with those negotiated by the other four Power-5 conferences. And with the rules changes put in place after all this took place, the Big 12 got to reinstate its championship game without having to carry 12 members.

That conference that got to "sit back and watch the carnage" is the only P-5 league to only make the playoffs 3 times in six years, with only one team making it past the first round. Of course, the Big 12 has only made it four times, but has yet to get a team past the first round. The Big 10 has also made it four times, but at least the one time they made it past the first round, they won the National Championship.

 

[BamaDude]

The future money in college sports is going to come through two avenues:

1. Network deals (for example when the SEC/CBS deal is up it will go from 50mm a year to close to 400mm a year) but that is based on the fanbase of the conference as a whole and ratings not geographic location.

2. The P5 schools break away from the NCAA and take over March Madness which would capture 1 billion a year that could be split up. People who don't think that will happen are naive and it's only a matter of time.

The naivete comes on the part of those that think the P-5 schools can take over March Madness. The NCAA tournament (and the NIT) is conducted by & owned by the NCAA, and the term, "March Madness" is trademarked by the NCAA. If the Power-5 schools were to leave the NCAA, they would no longer have access to the tournament and would have to create their own - and that would cost many millions of dollars to implement.

Leaving the NCAA would also mean leaving behind any future allotments they might have coming from past tournament appearances in not only basketball, but every other major sport, as well. And having to set up championships for baseball, soccer, softball, volleyball, etcetera. A lot of expense & headaches just to try to make a point.

 

[78Cyclones]

I like the Big Xii with 10 teams and the round robin schedule in both football and basketball better than the old unbalanced two division conference. As for the team swaps, I miss the old Big 8 teams that left (Mizzou, Colorado and Nebraska), but I am indifferent about A&M leaving and think they made a great move for themselves. As for the new guys, I am fine with both West Virginia and TCU - especially the Mountaineers!

 

[78Cyclones]

Oklahoma already chose in 1993, they want and need the Texas game every year for recruiting. Deloss Dodds and Donnie Duncan decided that at the formation of the Big 12.

Oklahoma does not need Nebraska at all.

Nebraska needed Oklahoma, but oh well. The Big 12 lacked the foresight that one of the biggest brand games in football, Nebraska/Oklahoma, and decided that game was worth less than Oklahoma/Texas.

In the B1G now, and hopefully, some day, Nebraska will have a season where they can qualify for a bowl game. Maybe Nebraska finds a niche in the B1G West, but it is looking doubtful at this point.

BTW, I don't miss any of the old conference stuff. Move on from it.

I do miss when the Power Conferences all played power OOC games. In the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, all teams played awesome OOC schedules. Nebraska would play USC, Texas A&M, Arizona State, and Minnesota in an OOC schedule.

2019 S Alabama(crap home game), and now Nebraska is the crap home game for others
2010 W Kentucky, Idaho, Washington S Dakota State (oh crap three crap home games)
1994 West Virginia, Texas Tech, UCLA, Pacific(the usual one crap home game)
1990 Baylor, No Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon State
1982 Iowa, Penn State, New Mexico State, Auburn
1979 Utah State, Iowa, Penn State, New Mexico State
1974 Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
1973 UCLA, North Carolina State, Wisconsin, Minnesota
1969 USC(my first home game), Texas A&M, Minnesota
1967 Washington, Minnesota, TCU
1965 TCU, Air Force, Wisconsin


I do miss being in my 20s though. But I can't change that either.

Interesting that you left out 1977 and 1978 - when Alabama and Nebraska played home and home! That was a monster series and enhanced both teams OOC schedules in both seasons. fyi: Alabama also had a home and home with Southern California in 1977 and 1978.

Alabama OOC in 1977:

@ Nebraska
@ Southern California
Louisville
Miami (Fla.)

Alabama OOC in 1978:

Nebraska @ Birmingham
@Mizzou
Southern California @ Birmingham
@ Washington
Virginia Tech

The Tide finished a combined 22-2 in those two season with 2 SEC Championships and Sugar Bowl wins over Ohio State and Penn State.

Not bad!

 

[Olyduck]

I don't think adding Rutgers & Maryland to the Big 10 was a good move, but the list of optimal candidates had been whittled down quite a bit by the time they made that move.

I think they still could have made a push at some other ACC teams. or West Virginia. but even still not sure Syracuse Pitt Louisville would have moved the needle. all on par with Maryland and only a little above Rutgers

 

[Wild Turkey]

The naivete comes on the part of those that think the P-5 schools can take over March Madness. The NCAA tournament (and the NIT) is conducted by & owned by the NCAA, and the term, "March Madness" is trademarked by the NCAA. If the Power-5 schools were to leave the NCAA, they would no longer have access to the tournament and would have to create their own - and that would cost many millions of dollars to implement.

Leaving the NCAA would also mean leaving behind any future allotments they might have coming from past tournament appearances in not only basketball, but every other major sport, as well. And having to set up championships for baseball, soccer, softball, volleyball, etcetera. A lot of expense & headaches just to try to make a point.

I admire your ability to be completely wrong and economically inept.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

In a streaming and fanbase world the only teams that aren't P5 that make sense in the future for expansion would be UCF or South Florida and in time some of the GA schools like Georgia State or Georgia Southern. The free tuition programs in those states have driven the enrollment in those schools through the roof and they have the potential for massive fan bases in the future if they drive interest in their programs.

Before that Cincinnati made a lot of sense because you got the state of Ohio and Memphis because of TN but in the cord cutting world I think those opportunities are over.

The Big 12 would have been much better off without TCU, Texas Tech and grabbing a Cincinnati and a UCF. They are just too saturated in one market and people outside the state don't care.

The future money in college sports is going to come through two avenues:

1. Network deals (for example when the SEC/CBS deal is up it will go from 50mm a year to close to 400mm a year) but that is based on the fanbase of the conference as a whole and ratings not geographic location.

2. The P5 schools break away from the NCAA and take over March Madness which would capture 1 billion a year that could be split up. People who don't think that will happen are naive and it's only a matter of time.

If the P5 schools break off, they'd almost have to do it as four 16 team conferences. The B1G is by far the safest, and if anyone questions that, it's because they simply do not understand that sports is NOT the end all, be all. Research dollars brings in TEN TIMES as much money than sports does for the Universities in the B1G. I think the PAC gets alot of research dollars as well, and they are sort of isolated out on the west coast, they are all big state schools with lots of fans, add in that travel and time zone issues means no one would want any of them if they broke up, so they are safe for all of those reasons, imo. The ACC? Alot of really good academic/research schools in the ACC, big state schools for the most part with big fan bases for the most part, I think they are safe as well.

The SEC? Not so much on the research side of things. They are the biggest when it comes to football, and I know most sports fans think that sports run the world, but they do not. Sports is a strong 2nd, and are a major factor, but in the long run, when the MAJOR SPLIT happens, it will be based on RESEARCH as much, if not more than sports. Three of the 5 conferences have that going for them.

That leaves the SEC and the Big 12 fighting for the 4th spot.

The Big 12? Outside of Texas/OU, it's really not much. IMO, they are the losers when it all comes down to it.

Is the SEC a bunch of crappy braindead schools? NO, Vandy and Florida are top tier, the rest are mainly 2nd tier, but 2nd tier is better than alot of the non P5 schools out there, and probably better than most in the Big 12. They are also big, and mostly state schools, so they can come up with the money to upgrade their research, and with the south's growing population, the tax base and fan base is there to make it happen. Now some in the Big 12 also have alot going for them, but too many do not. OSU, KSU, even Kansas, don't have alot going for them. I don't know enough about TCU, TT, Baylor, but I'm guessing they don't have much going for them outside of some decent sports and possibly a lot of fans? None of those 3 were original Big 8 member, either, so just as easily as they were added, I think they get left out.

Looking at the ACC and Big 12. Personally I think the ACC is stronger in every sport that matters, except football, but with research dollars mattering more than sports, that gives the ACC a stronger foundation to work with. So I see the Big 12 as being the conference that is broken up.

JMHO.


So the B1G, SEC & ACC have 14 if you don't count Notre Dame, and the Pac has 12, that leaves room for 10 teams in the 4 Super Conferences. BEFORE any current teams are dropped.


Who are those 10 teams and where might they end up? Who might get dropped, and who then gets left out?


First of all, does the B1G drop any teams? Rutgers is the most vulnerable to this. I can't see them dropping anyone else, and because a better option might not be found, they might stay loyal to Rutgers, but as they are the most recent add, they might opt to drop them? Does the Pac drop anyone? Utah as the latest add, and OSU/WSU are the most vulnerable, but with only 12 with those 3 teams, I don't see them dropping OSU/WSU, geography might be those 2 schools savior. Utah? Well, their bb and fb have done quite well, so I think that saves them. The ACC? Wake Forest and VT are the two most vulnerable, imo. What do they add? I'm not sure, they could be awesome research schools, but neither seems to add much sports wise, so when push comes to shove, I could see both of them getting the boot. But like I said, I don't know enough about those 2 schools, so I could be convinced otherwise. The SEC? I could easily see the SEC unloading Arkansas. What do they contribute? I know that alot of people talk trash about the Miss schools, but they are big state schools with lots of fans, and very long history in the conf, with the growing population down south, I just don't see it happening, and I think both are at least 2nd tier when it comes to research dollars, so you'd be gaining a little maybe on the sports side but losing alot in research money? Don't see it happening. Now Missouri on the other hand, being a late add that hasn't really contributed much, I could see them being left behind possibly? All of that said, I don't see any absolutes, so I'll assume none get dropped.



1. Notre Dame - It will only happen because of the force of the other 63 teams being willing to leave them out. I HOPE THEY DO GET LEFT OUT!!! I think that would be hilarious beyond belief. They deserve to be left out. But if included, I hope they stay with the ACC because I'd hate it if the B1G got them. The only way I'd like it if the B1G did get them, is it would be really enjoyable kicking their arse.

2. Texas - No brainer, and I think geography will force the issue and they and OU will go to the PAC. B1G will NEVER let UT get all they want, and UT/OU/NU all being in the same conf again would not work, imo. Would strengthen the B1G West and weaken the B1G East, which would balance out the conf I suppose? But I don't like the idea of UT coming in and trying to think they deserve more than an equal share or degree of influence. I think that would be the same reason the SEC won't take the pair, either. Enough money and people out in Cali to handle it, and the Pac, being as isolated as they are, may feel desperate enough to work with them to make it all work.

3. USF - This should be the B1G's #1 target. Fastly becoming a huge state school, focus from it's inception was academics and research. Thanks to it being founded by a UMn grad. They'd be an incredible fit into the B1G, as they eventually did get bitten by the sports bug and have a ton of potential in that regard. SEC and ACC don't need another Florida team, the B1G would love one. This gets the B1G to 15.

4. BYU - The Mormon religion is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. These guys will go to the PAC, because of geography, with an outside chance of going to the SEC with UT/OU if they drop Ark as BYU would add way more than Ark.

5. Oklahoma - Only because UT probably won't go anywhere without them and their football remains pretty strong. They along with BYU and UT would bring the PAC to 15. I think the only realistic option for #16, and this is because money talks, is UNLV. But I'm not claiming to be an expert on this issue. Just seems to make sense LONG TERM. The other option could be Kansas, but outside of bb, what does KU offer?

I'm very confident about the above 5. Only sort of confident about the next 2.

9. Cincy/Memphis/UCF - Individually? Maybe Memphis to the ACC and Cincy to the SEC? Both have a florida presence so I think UCF gets left out as it stands. This only if UT/OU don't go to the SEC which is a possibility. ACC already has 15, so only if they drop a team or ND goes to the B1G. They all seem to be favorites, but is that only because most fans are still stuck on the whole sports is all that matters thing, or the media footprint thing? Cincy is a good school, they are trying hard to upgrade their sports and I believe they are trying to upgrade their research as well, which is already pretty good, so if there is only one spot open and it's not the B1G with that empty spot, then I'd say Cincy is the best option of these 3. Memphis? I think they are only talked about because they've done well lately in both cfb and bb. The same could be said about UCF. Do either have anything to offer outside of sports and a media footprint for the right conf? So I think only Cincy comes out of this group.

10. UNLV - Getting PAC to 16. So much money in Vegas, I just think they won't get left out.

?. Kansas - Not sure about this? Is their BB enough? The Pac might go with them, MAYBE? They're best chance might be the B1G stealing Arizona St away from the PAC?



Teams that will probably be left out because they don't have enough to offer.

#1 - Army, Air Force, Navy - They don't contribute anything via research, and their main focus doesn't need to be sports, so it wouldn't be hard for them to shift to a lesser division. And I think they come as a package deal, not meaning they all have to go to the same conf, but they won't be willing to go without playing each other at least once a year.

Kansas State(marginal fb/bb not enough), Oklahoma State(wr is not enough, and occasionally bb/fb), TCU(fb is not enough), UConn(womens bb is not enough), WVU(bb is not enough), TT?, Baylor(fb/bb is not enough, or is it?), Arkansas?, Iowa St(this is a pretty good sports school recently, just don't know where'd they fit or who would want them?)



That leaves 3 unclaimed spots, more if any schools like Arkansas/WF get the boot. I don't know enough about all the rest of the schools out there to make good enough guesses on the last 3. If a gun got put to my head, I'd say UNLV & Kansas to the Pac & ASU to the B1G, putting them both to 16, then UConn to the ACC getting them to 16, Cincy and WVU to the SEC getting them to 16. But I'm not very confident about these last 3/4 pics.


The biggest factor that would through a wrench in this is it is a football/research centric view, sort of ignores the bb aspect of things and all other sports really. It would force SEC schools and a few others to tighten up their academic standards and would cause maybe too big of a divide, as schools that otherwise might get a research grant, might not because they did not get into the Super 64. And would that be the end? Like the Big Dance, might the Conferences offer up the chance for 8 more schools to eventually get in, or maybe 16 more schools? That might be one way of getting schools to focus more on academics and research, as a way of moving up?


My guess is if anything like this happened, it would be a football only move. Thus avoiding alot of the issues that otherwise might come up. I've probably over thought the whole issue? But I find it interesting so whatever.



I welcome any and all opinions in favor or in opposition to what I am posting.