Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 3:41:10 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.

When does track season start?

> > Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.
> When does track season start?
Technically, whichever of September 7 or when the school starts its fall term comes first. Each school is limited to 18 meets, up to six of which can be two-day meets, during the regular season.

In reality, it starts right after the NCAA Indoor championships, which end on 3/12.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 3:41:10 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.

It could be worse. USC took a DOMINATE 13-7 lead into the 4th quarter vs mighty SJSU today.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 3:41:10 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.

You are going to disappoint a lot of Cyclone fans...they are still hanging their hat on that win from last year.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:41:10 PM UTC-7, Eric Ramon wrote:
> Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.

Badgers done too.

So, it appears, is anyone not named Alabama or Georgia.

Mike

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:53:39 AM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:
> On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:41:10 PM UTC-7, Eric Ramon wrote:
> > Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.
> Badgers done too.
>
> So, it appears, is anyone not named Alabama or Georgia.
>
> Mike

Did you see Georgia’s offense last night? As a bulldog fan, it had me looking forward to women’s gymnastics season.

There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII:

There was a story somewhere about the four California quarterbacks starting for major programs this year -- none even in that part of the country.

No sane top-level player wants to play college ball in the Pac-12. They know it's inferior, and badly so.

Mike

> > Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.
> It could be worse. USC took a DOMINATE 13-7 lead into the 4th quarter vs mighty SJSU today.

It's not all bad news for Pac-12 football:
UCLA beat LSU
Oregon...struggled at home to hold off Fresno State
Stanford...lost at Kansas State
Oregon State...lost at Purdue
Arizona State...lost at home to BYU
Washington State...lost at home to Utah State
Cal...lost at home to Nevada
At least there are the FCS pushovers, right?
Utah was all over Weber State
Arizona State dominated Southern Utah
Colorado easily over Northern Colorado
Washington...lost at home to Montana

On 9/4/2021 4:41 PM, Eric Ramon wrote:
> Ducks look pretty sad. Oh well. Maybe 2022.
>

Go Green! Go White!

--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:14:00 AM UTC-7, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:

> Did you see Georgia’s offense last night? As a bulldog fan, it had me looking forward to women’s gymnastics season.

Did you see their defense? Remember, Clemson was a top-5 team and they don't have to play Alabama until the SEC title game.

Mike

> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII

"Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC) conference.

I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional Committee meetings later this year.

On 2021-09-05, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.del.grande@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
>
> "Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football
> conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the
> Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's
> Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is
> more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-
> 12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for
> football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins
> them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC)
> conference.
>
> I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional
> Committee meetings later this year.

Doesn't the Pac-12 have some standards for academics? Well, not quite
as good top to bottom as the Big 10, considering Wazoo and the Beav, but
way above Boise State.

--
It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
because they grow old, they grow old because they
stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2021-09-05, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> >
> > "Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football
> > conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the
> > Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's
> > Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is
> > more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-
> > 12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for
> > football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins
> > them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC)
> > conference.
> >
> > I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional
> > Committee meetings later this year.
> Doesn't the Pac-12 have some standards for academics? Well, not quite
> as good top to bottom as the Big 10, considering Wazoo and the Beav, but
> way above Boise State.
>
> --
> It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
> because they grow old, they grow old because they
> stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Do you mean standards explicitly set by the athletic conference or standards set by the individual academic institutions within the conference that apply to all their students?

On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller1969protonmail@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2021-09-05, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
>> >
>> > "Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football
>> > conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the
>> > Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's
>> > Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is
>> > more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-
>> > 12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for
>> > football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins
>> > them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC)
>> > conference.
>> >
>> > I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional
>> > Committee meetings later this year.
>> Doesn't the Pac-12 have some standards for academics? Well, not quite
>> as good top to bottom as the Big 10, considering Wazoo and the Beav, but
>> way above Boise State.
>>
>> --
>> It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
>> because they grow old, they grow old because they
>> stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
>
> Do you mean standards explicitly set by the athletic conference or
> standards set by the individual academic institutions within the
> conference that apply to all their students?

Neither. I mean the standard of scholarship that allows a school to
be considered for Big 10/Pac 12 membership. Mizzou would have liked
to join the B1G, but their combination of market and academics didn't
appeal.

I don't think Boise State has either market or academics going for it.
BYU is quite a bit closer with their national Mormon market and their
pretty good academic rankings.

--
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it,
can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the
universe to do. -- Galileo

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:26:16 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller19...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> On 2021-09-05, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> >> >
> >> > "Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football
> >> > conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the
> >> > Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's
> >> > Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is
> >> > more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-
> >> > 12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for
> >> > football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins
> >> > them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC)
> >> > conference.
> >> >
> >> > I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional
> >> > Committee meetings later this year.
> >> Doesn't the Pac-12 have some standards for academics? Well, not quite
> >> as good top to bottom as the Big 10, considering Wazoo and the Beav, but
> >> way above Boise State.
> >>
> >> --
> >> It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
> >> because they grow old, they grow old because they
> >> stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
> >
> > Do you mean standards explicitly set by the athletic conference or
> > standards set by the individual academic institutions within the
> > conference that apply to all their students?
> Neither. I mean the standard of scholarship that allows a school to
> be considered for Big 10/Pac 12 membership. Mizzou would have liked
> to join the B1G, but their combination of market and academics didn't
> appeal.
>
> I don't think Boise State has either market or academics going for it.
> BYU is quite a bit closer with their national Mormon market and their
> pretty good academic rankings.
>
> --
> The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it,
> can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the
> universe to do. -- Galileo

So standards set by the conference then. What are the specific academic standards set by the pac 12 and big 10 when reviewing schools for membership? Are they static or can they vary depending on who’s on the membership selection committee?

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 10:16:31 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> "Go" where?

Away.

Mike

> > > There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> > "Go" where?
> Away.

So I'll ask again: where would the teams go? No, most of them are not dropping football.

The Big Game predates the Iron Bowl. It's not going away any time soon.

On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller1969protonmail@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:26:16 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller19...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> >> On 2021-09-05, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
>> >> >
>> >> > "Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football
>> >> > conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the
>> >> > Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's
>> >> > Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is
>> >> > more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-
>> >> > 12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for
>> >> > football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins
>> >> > them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC)
>> >> > conference.
>> >> >
>> >> > I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional
>> >> > Committee meetings later this year.
>> >> Doesn't the Pac-12 have some standards for academics? Well, not quite
>> >> as good top to bottom as the Big 10, considering Wazoo and the Beav, but
>> >> way above Boise State.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
>> >> because they grow old, they grow old because they
>> >> stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
>> >
>> > Do you mean standards explicitly set by the athletic conference or
>> > standards set by the individual academic institutions within the
>> > conference that apply to all their students?
>> Neither. I mean the standard of scholarship that allows a school to
>> be considered for Big 10/Pac 12 membership. Mizzou would have liked
>> to join the B1G, but their combination of market and academics didn't
>> appeal.
>>
>> I don't think Boise State has either market or academics going for it.
>> BYU is quite a bit closer with their national Mormon market and their
>> pretty good academic rankings.
>>
>> --
>> The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it,
>> can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the
>> universe to do. -- Galileo
>
> So standards set by the conference then.

To my mind there is a difference between "standards" which implies
something codified and set down in writing, and "standard" which does
not, it being a synonym for level.

> What are the specific academic standards set by the pac 12 and big 10
> when reviewing schools for membership? Are they static or can they
> vary depending on who???s on the membership selection committee?

There are not specific standards from what I can see. I think it is
an evaluation of the general standard of excellence. For the Big 10 every
one of its members is in the top 100 of (most) rankings for research schools,
with Michigan State the lowest at 80.

I don't think the athletic standard matters that much, or they wouldn't have
Rutgers. But the market penetration matters, I am sure.

--
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 4:39:27 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > > There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> > > "Go" where?
> > Away.
> So I'll ask again: where would the teams go? No, most of them are not dropping football.

It'll get dropped for them.

> The Big Game predates the Iron Bowl. It's not going away any time soon.

Maybe as a club sporting event -- certainly not on the level it is now.

Mike

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 10:35:02 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller19...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:26:16 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller19...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> >> On 2021-09-05, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football
> >> >> > conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the
> >> >> > Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's
> >> >> > Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is
> >> >> > more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-
> >> >> > 12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for
> >> >> > football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins
> >> >> > them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC)
> >> >> > conference.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional
> >> >> > Committee meetings later this year.
> >> >> Doesn't the Pac-12 have some standards for academics? Well, not quite
> >> >> as good top to bottom as the Big 10, considering Wazoo and the Beav, but
> >> >> way above Boise State.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
> >> >> because they grow old, they grow old because they
> >> >> stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
> >> >
> >> > Do you mean standards explicitly set by the athletic conference or
> >> > standards set by the individual academic institutions within the
> >> > conference that apply to all their students?
> >> Neither. I mean the standard of scholarship that allows a school to
> >> be considered for Big 10/Pac 12 membership. Mizzou would have liked
> >> to join the B1G, but their combination of market and academics didn't
> >> appeal.
> >>
> >> I don't think Boise State has either market or academics going for it.
> >> BYU is quite a bit closer with their national Mormon market and their
> >> pretty good academic rankings.
> >>
> >> --
> >> The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it,
> >> can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the
> >> universe to do. -- Galileo
> >
> > So standards set by the conference then.
> To my mind there is a difference between "standards" which implies
> something codified and set down in writing, and "standard" which does
> not, it being a synonym for level.
> > What are the specific academic standards set by the pac 12 and big 10
> > when reviewing schools for membership? Are they static or can they
> > vary depending on who???s on the membership selection committee?
>
> There are not specific standards from what I can see. I think it is
> an evaluation of the general standard of excellence. For the Big 10 every
> one of its members is in the top 100 of (most) rankings for research schools,
> with Michigan State the lowest at 80.
>
> I don't think the athletic standard matters that much, or they wouldn't have
> Rutgers. But the market penetration matters, I am sure.
>
> --
> Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Just wondering. I often hear big ten fans talk about their “academic standards” as if it applies to their sports teams. I wasn’t sure if the standards actually exist or is it just another case of Great Lakes Coastal Elitism.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 9:09:17 AM UTC-4, Johnny RSFCootball wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 10:35:02 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> > On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller19...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:26:16 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> > >> On 2021-09-05, Johnny RSFCootball <jaymiller19...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> > >> >> On 2021-09-05, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "Go" where? Assuming you are referring to just the football
> > >> >> > conferences, where would the teams go? USC could end up in, say, the
> > >> >> > Big 10, and Oregon might end up somewhere if somebody thinks there's
> > >> >> > Nike money that goes with the deal, but then what? What I think is
> > >> >> > more likely to happen is, if a couple of schools leave, then the Pac-
> > >> >> > 12 poaches, say, Boise State and BYU from the Mountain West for
> > >> >> > football, and it becomes a "Group of 6" (or 7, if the Big 12 joins
> > >> >> > them - maybe even 8, if Clemson can be talked out of the ACC)
> > >> >> > conference.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I for one want to see what comes out of the NCAA's Constitutional
> > >> >> > Committee meetings later this year.
> > >> >> Doesn't the Pac-12 have some standards for academics? Well, not quite
> > >> >> as good top to bottom as the Big 10, considering Wazoo and the Beav, but
> > >> >> way above Boise State.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
> > >> >> because they grow old, they grow old because they
> > >> >> stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
> > >> >
> > >> > Do you mean standards explicitly set by the athletic conference or
> > >> > standards set by the individual academic institutions within the
> > >> > conference that apply to all their students?
> > >> Neither. I mean the standard of scholarship that allows a school to
> > >> be considered for Big 10/Pac 12 membership. Mizzou would have liked
> > >> to join the B1G, but their combination of market and academics didn't
> > >> appeal.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think Boise State has either market or academics going for it.
> > >> BYU is quite a bit closer with their national Mormon market and their
> > >> pretty good academic rankings.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it,
> > >> can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the
> > >> universe to do. -- Galileo
> > >
> > > So standards set by the conference then.
> > To my mind there is a difference between "standards" which implies
> > something codified and set down in writing, and "standard" which does
> > not, it being a synonym for level.
> > > What are the specific academic standards set by the pac 12 and big 10
> > > when reviewing schools for membership? Are they static or can they
> > > vary depending on who???s on the membership selection committee?
> >
> > There are not specific standards from what I can see. I think it is
> > an evaluation of the general standard of excellence. For the Big 10 every
> > one of its members is in the top 100 of (most) rankings for research schools,
> > with Michigan State the lowest at 80.
> >
> > I don't think the athletic standard matters that much, or they wouldn't have
> > Rutgers. But the market penetration matters, I am sure.
> >
> > --
> > Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
> Just wondering. I often hear big ten fans talk about their “academic standards” as if it applies to their sports teams. I wasn’t sure if the standards actually exist or is it just another case of Great Lakes Coastal Elitism.

I remember they made a big stink about AAU membership when they added Nebraska. Who then got kicked out of the AAU after joining the Big Ten.

> > > > > There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII
> > > > "Go" where?
> > > Away.
> > So I'll ask again: where would the teams go? No, most of them are not dropping football.
> It'll get dropped for them.

You mean the way that no non-FBS schools play football? Oh, wait...and it's not a "club sport" at those schools, either (not even in Division III, where they don't give out athletic scholarships - well, they SAY they don't, but my nephew was offered a 'general' scholarship to a D3 school, and I have a feeling the fact that he's 6'8 and wants to play volleyball had something to do with the offer).

> > The Big Game predates the Iron Bowl. It's not going away any time soon.
> Maybe as a club sporting event -- certainly not on the level it is now.

It's Pac-12 football - what "level is it at now"? It will fill Memorial Stadium or Stanford Stadium every year, like it does now.

I still think that it is the "superconference" schools that need to make it a "club sport" and make a clean break from the schools themselves. Contrary to what some people here like to believe, Title IX is neither "unconstitutional" nor "unenforceable in light of the AADA," so the NCAA simply allowing the schools to pay the football players won't work the way most people think it will.

Here's a question for you: what teams are in the "superconference"?

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 11:01:00 AM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:
> There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII:
>
> There was a story somewhere about the four California quarterbacks starting for major programs this year -- none even in that part of the country.
>
> No sane top-level player wants to play college ball in the Pac-12. They know it's inferior, and badly so.
>
> Mike

I wonder if the NIL thing might change that. I'm guess that some players can rake in a bunch of money in high population areas like LA, SF or Seattle.

Doug

> > There's a reason that the Pac-12 is probably the next conference to go after the Big XII:
> >
> > There was a story somewhere about the four California quarterbacks starting for major programs this year -- none even in that part of the country.
> >
> > No sane top-level player wants to play college ball in the Pac-12. They know it's inferior, and badly so.
> >
> I wonder if the NIL thing might change that. I'm guess that some players can rake in a bunch of money in high population areas like LA, SF or Seattle.

Maybe, but there are two problems with that reasoning: one, you are assuming that companies will shell out NIL money for what many people believe is "second-rate college football," and two, I doubt it will compare to the money available from boosters in the rest of the country - expecting "the population" to come up with the money only works in places where football is a religion unto itself. Maybe - MAYBE - USC can pull it off, because it has a national following, but this was before the program pretty much collapsed after its two-year postseason ban.