|
Replies: 29
| visibility 8482
|
Scout Team [85]
TigerPulse: 100%
9
|
Clemson told the Big Ten to take a hike
4
Jan 3, 2025, 10:50 PM
|
|
I heard Clemson was asked and declined
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [40759]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 18550
Joined: 2015
|
Cool***
1
2
Jan 3, 2025, 10:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1268]
TigerPulse: 87%
27
|
Re: Cool***
4
Jan 4, 2025, 7:06 AM
|
|
big mistake huge!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3507]
TigerPulse: 98%
34
|
It's cool to throw away 30+ mil a year?***
1
Jan 4, 2025, 9:24 AM
[ in reply to Cool*** ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2908]
TigerPulse: 95%
33
|
Money doesnt necessarily correlate to *elite*.
Jan 6, 2025, 12:38 AM
|
|
Currently only 3 of the top 10 funded teams could be considered elite at the moment.
This was from the other day.
The top 10 in funding since 2005:
1. Oregon ($969M)
2. Texas A&M ($849M)
3. Texas ($766M)
4. Florida ($763M)
5. Georgia ($716M)
6. Oklahoma St ($670M)
7. LSU ($618M)
8. Oklahoma ($597M)
9. Auburn ($580M)
10. FSU ($540M)
Who are the elite here? 3 of 10 teams?
The rest (counting down):
50. Memphis Tigers: $170 million
49. Maryland Terrapins: $194 million
48. Minnesota Golden Gophers: $199 million
47. Oregon State Beavers: $201 million
46. Colorado Buffaloes: $208 million
45. NC State Wolfpack: $216 million
44. Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets: $220 million
43. UCLA Bruins: $233 million
42. Nebraska Cornhuskers: $236 million
41. Iowa State Cyclones: $249 million
40. Arizona State Sun Devils: $265 million
39. Mississippi State Bulldogs: $273 million
38. California Golden Bears: $283 million
37. Purdue Boilermakers: $289 million
36. Kentucky Wildcats: $302 million
35. Ole Miss Rebels: $310 million
34. Virginia Tech Hokies: $319 million
33t. Kansas State Wildcats: $324 million
33t. Arkansas Razorbacks: $324 million
31. Mizzou Tigers: $344 million
30. North Carolina Tar Heels: $344 million
29. Arizona Wildcats: $346 million
28. Indiana Hoosiers: $351 million
27. West Virginia Mountaineers: $354 million
26. Illinois Fighting Illini: $373 million
25. Penn State Nittany Lions: $386 million
24. Wisconsin Badgers: $389 million
23. Texas Tech Red Raiders: $396 million
22. Washington Huskies: $402 million
21. Michigan State Spartans: $439 million
20. Louisville Cardinals: $450 million
19. Kansas Jayhawks: $459 million
18. South Carolina Gamecocks: $466 million
17. Clemson Tigers: $476 million
16. Iowa Hawkeyes: $477 million
15. Michigan Wolverines: $493 million
14. Tennessee Volunteers: $500 million
13. Virginia Cavaliers: $516 million
12. Alabama Crimson Tide: $528 million
11. Ohio State Buckeyes: $536 million
The 4 remaining playoff teams (in order of NIL)
1. Texas ($766M, 1st)
2. Ohio State ($536M, 11th)
3. Penn State ($386M, 26th
4. Notre Dame (not listed in top 50, private)
Most schools will not be shifting 100% of revenue sharing towards football, like we are. For example, we’re allocating all $20M to football whereas OSU is moving $11M to football and splitting out the rest. Our dedication to the “cash cow” will help to continue retaining the best of our roster. We’ve done a great job of that.
Overall, we’re in line with the best in the country, but regardless the very best funds in the country aren’t showing a direct correlation to elite status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65676]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 41979
Joined: 2004
|
what year was that?
3
Jan 3, 2025, 10:53 PM
|
|
Did Kathy tell you that, cuz she's full of crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [85]
TigerPulse: 100%
9
|
Re: what year was that?***
2
Jan 3, 2025, 10:54 PM
|
|
The Maryland Rutgers year . 2012ish. Big ten wanted to either expand east or south .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2866]
TigerPulse: 95%
33
|
Source? Cite?****
1
Jan 3, 2025, 10:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [85]
TigerPulse: 100%
9
|
Re: Source? Cite?****
2
Jan 3, 2025, 10:56 PM
|
|
I read an article discussing Maryland moving to big ten circa 2016ish and how and why and the details that lead to it . Maryland wasn’t the big tens first pick out of the acc . Clemson and Carolina were favored over Maryland and Virginia. Three out of the four declined and Rutgers got the call in part because Rutgers was cheap .
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [523]
TigerPulse: 100%
19
|
The Big Ten wanted the DC television market
4
Jan 3, 2025, 11:00 PM
|
|
The Big Ten wanted the DC television market, not the one from Gaffney to Toccoa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2908]
TigerPulse: 95%
33
|
The DC television market?
2
Jan 3, 2025, 11:08 PM
|
|
Market area has nothing to do with it, if nobody cares to watch the team in that market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [16040]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 17565
Joined: 1999
|
At the time TV markets was everything and the priority
1
Jan 4, 2025, 1:09 AM
|
|
was getting the Big Ten Network on major market cable offerings. Rutgers (NY/NJ) and Maryland (DC) made way more sense than Clemson or UNC-Ch.
The situation has changed and it’s all about overall conference match-ups now, so anyone would take Clemson over either of those teams but back then, no way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6154]
TigerPulse: 95%
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6154]
TigerPulse: 95%
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [130]
TigerPulse: 100%
11
|
Re: The Big Ten wanted the DC television market
1
Jan 4, 2025, 2:24 AM
|
|
They do to watch Ohio State or Michigan or PSU beat the snot out of them. Lots of other B1G alumni with $ in the NY/ NJ market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [979]
TigerPulse: 90%
24
|
Re: The Big Ten wanted the DC television market
Jan 4, 2025, 6:17 AM
[ in reply to Re: The Big Ten wanted the DC television market ] |
|
I suspect, more than watch Clemson just given the size of the media markets and universities but I know you weren't actually serious...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13828]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 14958
Joined: 2010
|
Re: The Big Ten wanted the DC television market
6
6
Jan 3, 2025, 11:29 PM
[ in reply to The Big Ten wanted the DC television market ] |
|
That Gaffney to Toccoa market you are slamming is like the 36th in the country compared to the SEC's Columbia SC market which is #76.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [58998]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 23843
Joined: 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1465]
TigerPulse: 87%
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [979]
TigerPulse: 90%
24
|
Re: Source? Cite?****
Jan 4, 2025, 6:15 AM
[ in reply to Re: Source? Cite?**** ] |
|
I suspect Rutgers academics and the NY area media market also came into play...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1240]
TigerPulse: 92%
27
|
It was GT, UNC, Virigian and MD they wanted if you must know the truth. MD is
Jan 4, 2025, 8:20 AM
[ in reply to Re: Source? Cite?**** ] |
|
all they could get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1298]
TigerPulse: 55%
27
|
Re: Source? Cite?****
Jan 5, 2025, 7:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: Source? Cite?**** ] |
|
That was right call for Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [220]
TigerPulse: 92%
13
|
Re: Clemson told the Big Ten to take a hike
1
Jan 3, 2025, 11:02 PM
|
|
Meh, don't know about that. From what I gather, heard the sec was to "top heavy". Do know most fans want the SEC. We shall see...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [30]
TigerPulse: 87%
4
|
Re: Clemson told the Big Ten to take a hike
4
Jan 4, 2025, 1:21 AM
|
|
I might make a few mad, but I wish we would get out of the acc for real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [99579]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98182
Joined: 2009
|
Was that written on a truckstop toilet partition?
3
Jan 4, 2025, 6:25 AM
|
|
Those guys get pilled up and have all kinds of delusions.
I believe Clemson's BOT would prefer playing home and home in the south and it's true that both SEC and B1G are remaining silent in public but Clemson is a media draw that is too valuable to be rejected or ignored by either conference.
IMO, the addition of Clemson and FSU would bring enough eyes to the SEC to make the SEC media value equal to or greater than that of the B1G. I believe both conferences know that.
Tigernet has a huge bunch of nancy pantywaste fans who get all emotional about the upcoming changes to football, Clemson and FSU leaving the conference and who does and doesn't want either or both teams. They ignore the economics in lieu of their emotions and appear brain dead when it comes to evaluating Clemson football's future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [81468]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 37642
Joined: 2003
|
Speaking of delusion, I find it delusional that the Talking Richardheads try to
3
Jan 4, 2025, 9:22 AM
|
|
push the narrative that North Carolina and Virginia are more desirable expansion teams for the BIG or SEC than Clemson and FSU. I don't see how that would fly even in Harry Potter World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10458]
TigerPulse: 95%
45
Posts: 11890
Joined: 2003
|
Re: Clemson told the Big Ten to take a hike
Jan 4, 2025, 7:19 AM
|
|
You have solid sources for someone who has been on t-net a whole week. Keep that insider info coming!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6236]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Clemson told the Big Ten to take a hike
Jan 4, 2025, 12:43 PM
|
|
I seriously doubt any offer was made considering our AAU status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2908]
TigerPulse: 95%
33
|
We are very much in play for the big 10 expansion and realignment is
Jan 6, 2025, 12:33 AM
|
|
far from over. Clemson is one of the top remaining brands in the realigning landscape. We will be leaving the ACC when all the legal smoke clears. Think about it… us and Notre Dame. Two biggest names not truly settled in a conference. FSU would be next, if you truly want to look at brands. What is the status of the lawsuits anyway?
I think we’ll eventually settle into the SEC or the Big 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [20]
TigerPulse: 100%
3
|
Re: Clemson told the Big Ten to take a hike
Jan 6, 2025, 6:53 AM
|
|
Well in the next 7 to 10 years max they will be in big ten.. u see clemson is in progress of becoming aau accredited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 29
| visibility 8482
|
|
|
50
