lol at SEC teams wanting to leave the most stable and lucrative conference there is. Well to be fair the B1G Network makes a ton of cash too so I couldn't tell you which one makes more.

(12-07-2012 11:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 10:25 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...on-the-acc

Dodds' take on a lot of the same recent innuendo fueling discussion on this board. Speculation or real smoke?

If you ask me, why isn't Florida and Georgia to the B1G just as likely a rumor as more ACC schools? Those states bring more value than NC and VA, and UGA delivers GA better than GT. The SEC has no exit fee, and the B1G appears to be promising much bigger $'s than the SEC.

The Big Ten isn't going to pry anyone from the SEC (and I'm a Big Ten guy).

Florida State is the one you need to watch out for. There are plenty of people (including me) that said that the ACC wouldn't take Louisville on the basis of academics, but look at what happened.

The presumption is that the Big Ten has the ability (or at least inclination) to further raid the ACC. Well, if you put out a list of the most valuable non-Big Ten schools based strictly on TV value, which one comes out on top?

University of Texas.

Quote:Why wouldn't the Big Ten take the one on top (especially if it's paired with an academically prestigious partner like Georgia Tech), especially when the one on top seems to be much more willing to move than ones below it like UNC? Why would the Big Ten just let the University of Texas pair up with the entire state of Florida? How is that good for the Big Ten in the long-term?

Because FSU and UT get the Big Ten Network into Florida and Texas. More than enough money to compensate UT for their home-game TV rights.

Quote:If FSU approaches the Big Ten, I don't think the conference would (or should) turn them down. They are in a "special" category in terms of demographics and market just like Notre Dame is in a "special" category as a national brand name for the Big Ten to go outside of its normal academic profile. Jim Delany has said the word "demographics" more than any single other word in connection with conference realignment, and you can't get better demographics with a single school than FSU outside of the University of Texas or the University of Florida. Don't let talk about other more "safe" regional options for the Big Ten (remember how Missouri was continuously talked about as the top target for the Big Ten in 2010 when the true Big Ten targets from the Big 12 were Texas and Nebraska) blind you to what would make more money (BY FAR) for the conference than any other single option from the ACC.

(12-07-2012 11:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Auburn just fired a guy with a national title newer than Angry Birds. So those are some pretty tall expectations to meet. You win a national title at Arkansas, they're not firing you. They might hire your statue to coach the team after you die.

Arkansas fired Nolan Richardson after he won a national title there.

(12-07-2012 11:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 10:25 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...on-the-acc

Dodds' take on a lot of the same recent innuendo fueling discussion on this board. Speculation or real smoke?

If you ask me, why isn't Florida and Georgia to the B1G just as likely a rumor as more ACC schools? Those states bring more value than NC and VA, and UGA delivers GA better than GT. The SEC has no exit fee, and the B1G appears to be promising much bigger $'s than the SEC.

The Big Ten isn't going to pry anyone from the SEC (and I'm a Big Ten guy).

Florida State is the one you need to watch out for. There are plenty of people (including me) that said that the ACC wouldn't take Louisville on the basis of academics, but look at what happened.

The presumption is that the Big Ten has the ability (or at least inclination) to further raid the ACC. Well, if you put out a list of the most valuable non-Big Ten schools based strictly on TV value, which one comes out on top?

University of Texas.

Quote:Why wouldn't the Big Ten take the one on top (especially if it's paired with an academically prestigious partner like Georgia Tech), especially when the one on top seems to be much more willing to move than ones below it like UNC? Why would the Big Ten just let the University of Texas pair up with the entire state of Florida? How is that good for the Big Ten in the long-term?

Because FSU and UT get the Big Ten Network into Florida and Texas. More than enough money to compensate UT for their home-game TV rights.

Quote:If FSU approaches the Big Ten, I don't think the conference would (or should) turn them down. They are in a "special" category in terms of demographics and market just like Notre Dame is in a "special" category as a national brand name for the Big Ten to go outside of its normal academic profile. Jim Delany has said the word "demographics" more than any single other word in connection with conference realignment, and you can't get better demographics with a single school than FSU outside of the University of Texas or the University of Florida. Don't let talk about other more "safe" regional options for the Big Ten (remember how Missouri was continuously talked about as the top target for the Big Ten in 2010 when the true Big Ten targets from the Big 12 were Texas and Nebraska) blind you to what would make more money (BY FAR) for the conference than any other single option from the ACC.

Well yes, the Big Ten would like Texas as an equal member no questions asked, but I don't see that option on the table for a number of reasons (ranging from the the grant of rights to the Longhorn Network to the fact that this is a school that has a complete need for control). FSU is a school that seems willing to move and they happen to provide a lot of value, so that's a bit of a different situation.

(12-07-2012 12:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 10:25 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...on-the-acc

Dodds' take on a lot of the same recent innuendo fueling discussion on this board. Speculation or real smoke?

If you ask me, why isn't Florida and Georgia to the B1G just as likely a rumor as more ACC schools? Those states bring more value than NC and VA, and UGA delivers GA better than GT. The SEC has no exit fee, and the B1G appears to be promising much bigger $'s than the SEC.

The Big Ten isn't going to pry anyone from the SEC (and I'm a Big Ten guy).

Florida State is the one you need to watch out for. There are plenty of people (including me) that said that the ACC wouldn't take Louisville on the basis of academics, but look at what happened.

The presumption is that the Big Ten has the ability (or at least inclination) to further raid the ACC. Well, if you put out a list of the most valuable non-Big Ten schools based strictly on TV value, which one comes out on top?

University of Texas.

Quote:Why wouldn't the Big Ten take the one on top (especially if it's paired with an academically prestigious partner like Georgia Tech), especially when the one on top seems to be much more willing to move than ones below it like UNC? Why would the Big Ten just let the University of Texas pair up with the entire state of Florida? How is that good for the Big Ten in the long-term?

Because FSU and UT get the Big Ten Network into Florida and Texas. More than enough money to compensate UT for their home-game TV rights.

Quote:If FSU approaches the Big Ten, I don't think the conference would (or should) turn them down. They are in a "special" category in terms of demographics and market just like Notre Dame is in a "special" category as a national brand name for the Big Ten to go outside of its normal academic profile. Jim Delany has said the word "demographics" more than any single other word in connection with conference realignment, and you can't get better demographics with a single school than FSU outside of the University of Texas or the University of Florida. Don't let talk about other more "safe" regional options for the Big Ten (remember how Missouri was continuously talked about as the top target for the Big Ten in 2010 when the true Big Ten targets from the Big 12 were Texas and Nebraska) blind you to what would make more money (BY FAR) for the conference than any other single option from the ACC.

Well yes, the Big Ten would like Texas as an equal member no questions asked, but I don't see that option on the table for a number of reasons (ranging from the the grant of rights to the Longhorn Network to the fact that this is a school that has a complete need for control). FSU is a school that seems willing to move and they happen to provide a lot of value, so that's a bit of a different situation.

Frank, in your opinion what are the chances that either Slive or Delany would move past 16 to 18 if profitable fits were available to them?

(12-07-2012 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Frank, in your opinion what are the chances that either Slive or Delany would move past 16 to 18 if profitable fits were available to them?

I think that it would be really difficult for either league to do that. I do believe that they want to maintain a conference identity and that gets diluted more with each additional member. When you get to the point where it's just a massive scheduling arrangement under a conference banner (which I believe is what would happen beyond 16), then there are diminishing returns. Never say never, of course, but going past 16 is a tough barrier to cross.

(12-07-2012 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Frank, in your opinion what are the chances that either Slive or Delany would move past 16 to 18 if profitable fits were available to them?

I think that it would be really difficult for either league to do that. I do believe that they want to maintain a conference identity and that gets diluted more with each additional member. When you get to the point where it's just a massive scheduling arrangement under a conference banner (which I believe is what would happen beyond 16), then there are diminishing returns. Never say never, of course, but going past 16 is a tough barrier to cross.

Thanks for the reply and as usual your logic is appreciated. I was thinking even more in terms of that kind of move for the Big 10 than for the SEC, although there would still be geographic and profitable fits available for the SEC as well.

Let's say the F.S.U. expansion opportunity was there for the Big 10. Wouldn't moving to three divisions grouped relatively geographically make such a move more feasible.
Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Ga Tech, Florida State, Penn State does form an Eastern Seaboard Division.

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Ohio State, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

would give a distinct regional flavor with some balance.

If the SEC did something similar I would have to believe that the NCAA would not stand in the way of the two most profitable leagues under its supervision. Three divisional champions and 1 at large would then comprise the conference championship and for the Big 10 that would mean two extra rounds of high level competition for not only revenue and exposure in the South (championship round in Atlanta), but for strength of schedule to determine high paying bowl matchups outside of the playoff structure.

The schedule would be comprised of 9 conference games: 5 from the division, & two from each of the other divisions. Every team would play every other team every three years if you didn't play home & home consecutively, but rather alternated after the first rotation.

Just thinking down the road a bit.

(12-07-2012 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that it would be really difficult for either league to do that. I do believe that they want to maintain a conference identity and that gets diluted more with each additional member. When you get to the point where it's just a massive scheduling arrangement under a conference banner (which I believe is what would happen beyond 16), then there are diminishing returns. Never say never, of course, but going past 16 is a tough barrier to cross.

Long gone are the glory days of playing every school in your conference for football once and twice for basketball. :titanic:

(12-07-2012 12:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Auburn just fired a guy with a national title newer than Angry Birds. So those are some pretty tall expectations to meet. You win a national title at Arkansas, they're not firing you. They might hire your statue to coach the team after you die.

Arkansas fired Nolan Richardson after he won a national title there.

While no national titles, they also drove off Lou Holtz and Ken Hatfield.

(12-07-2012 04:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that it would be really difficult for either league to do that. I do believe that they want to maintain a conference identity and that gets diluted more with each additional member. When you get to the point where it's just a massive scheduling arrangement under a conference banner (which I believe is what would happen beyond 16), then there are diminishing returns. Never say never, of course, but going past 16 is a tough barrier to cross.

Long gone are the glory days of playing every school in your conference for football once and twice for basketball. :titanic:

True, but there's a significant difference between seeing other conference-mates 2 out of 4 (or even 2 out of 6) years compared to only 2 out of 8 or 10 years (which basically feels like a non-conference game when it's that infrequent).

(12-07-2012 10:25 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...on-the-acc

Dodds' take on a lot of the same recent innuendo fueling discussion on this board. Speculation or real smoke?

If you ask me, why isn't Florida and Georgia to the B1G just as likely a rumor as more ACC schools? Those states bring more value than NC and VA, and UGA delivers GA better than GT. The SEC has no exit fee, and the B1G appears to be promising much bigger $'s than the SEC.

Until the SEC network gets up and running.........................and there's a reason the SEC has no exit fee...............no school in their right minds would leave.

(12-07-2012 04:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that it would be really difficult for either league to do that. I do believe that they want to maintain a conference identity and that gets diluted more with each additional member. When you get to the point where it's just a massive scheduling arrangement under a conference banner (which I believe is what would happen beyond 16), then there are diminishing returns. Never say never, of course, but going past 16 is a tough barrier to cross.

Long gone are the glory days of playing every school in your conference for football once and twice for basketball. :titanic:

Not in the B12,,,

(12-07-2012 11:09 AM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Auburn has to be one of the worst jobs. Arguably 2nd fiddle in your own state and a group of boosters that make life miserable.

One of the most stupid post to ever make it's way to this message board. Someone NEEDS to dock rep points for saying something so stupid.

1. The iron bowl is arguable the largest or one of the largest rivalries in the country.

2. I have lived in Texas and I can tell you while football is enjoyed in Texas football is a religion in the south. People who have never even set foot on a community college will fight over Alabama and Auburn. You rarely meet anyone in the state of Alabama that is not a Auburn or Alabama fan. I'm even a closet Alabama and not because they are good. I actually have taken classes there and most of my friends went to Bama.

3. Jordan Hare stadium seats over 85k dude and they near fill it up for most games.

4. I have nothing for or against Auburn but they are easily one of the best programs in the nation the past 20 years. Multiple top 25 finishes, a national title, a heisman winner, and they have made some great NFL talent.

(12-07-2012 11:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If FSU approaches the Big Ten, I don't think the conference would (or should) turn them down. They are in a "special" category in terms of demographics and market just like Notre Dame is in a "special" category as a national brand name for the Big Ten to go outside of its normal academic profile.

Frank, I do not understand why you think so highly of FSU as a national TV brand. Maybe they developed that aura in the 1990s when they were in a BCS bowl every year, but that was 10 years ago and the aura has faded.

Yes, FSU can draw a good TV rating - when they are playing another good team. But FSU vs Wake draws flies, even their own fans will stay away from the Doak in droves.

If FSU was so gosh-darn valuable, why hasn't the SEC scooped them up? Sure, there are politics involved, but money trumps all that. Heck, probably most of the B1G schools "hate" Notre Dame, but the Irish could join anytime they wanted.

FSU just isn't in that same catagory of being able to write their own ticket. Of the schools outside of the B1G, SEC, and PAC, only the Irish and Texas are.

(12-07-2012 07:58 PM)TigerFan444 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If FSU approaches the Big Ten, I don't think the conference would (or should) turn them down. They are in a "special" category in terms of demographics and market just like Notre Dame is in a "special" category as a national brand name for the Big Ten to go outside of its normal academic profile.

Frank, I do not understand why you think so highly of FSU as a national TV brand. Maybe they developed that aura in the 1990s when they were in a BCS bowl every year, but that was 10 years ago and the aura has faded.

It's not about FSU as a national brand. (They still are, but that's not the point.) It's that Florida State gets BTN on basic cable throughout Florida.

Quote:Yes, FSU can draw a good TV rating - when they are playing another good team. But FSU vs Wake draws flies, even their own fans will stay away from the Doak in droves.

It draws flies nationally, but I'm sure it does fine in Florida. And it would be, say, FSU vs Purdue, on the BTN.

Quote:If FSU was so gosh-darn valuable, why hasn't the SEC scooped them up?

1. Florida doesn't want the in-state competition.
2. As leagues move towards conference networks, FSU does not add any TV sets to the projected SEC Network footprint.

Quote:Sure, there are politics involved, but money trumps all that. Heck, probably most of the B1G schools "hate" Notre Dame, but the Irish could join anytime they wanted.

That's true.

Quote:FSU just isn't in that same catagory of being able to write their own ticket. Of the schools outside of the B1G, SEC, and PAC, only the Irish and Texas are.

They can't write their own ticket the way ND and UT can, but I think FSU could get into any conference they really wanted to. Even the SEC would probably rather drop everything I said above to keep FSU out the Big XII or Big Ten, and keep the Big TEn or XII out of Florida.

(12-07-2012 07:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:09 AM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Auburn has to be one of the worst jobs. Arguably 2nd fiddle in your own state and a group of boosters that make life miserable.

One of the most stupid post to ever make it's way to this message board. Someone NEEDS to dock rep points for saying something so stupid.

1. The iron bowl is arguable the largest or one of the largest rivalries in the country.

2. I have lived in Texas and I can tell you while football is enjoyed in Texas football is a religion in the south. People who have never even set foot on a community college will fight over Alabama and Auburn. You rarely meet anyone in the state of Alabama that is not a Auburn or Alabama fan. I'm even a closet Alabama and not because they are good. I actually have taken classes there and most of my friends went to Bama.

3. Jordan Hare stadium seats over 85k dude and they near fill it up for most games.

4. I have nothing for or against Auburn but they are easily one of the best programs in the nation the past 20 years. Multiple top 25 finishes, a national title, a heisman winner, and they have made some great NFL talent.

Football is just as much a religion in Texas. I am sure they have plenty of fights between Longhorn enthusiasts and Aggie enthusiasts. Just look at some of their high school stadiums? 20k+ capacity in some of them?

Perhaps we are talking about a difference between holy rollers and the more traditionals but none the less both are religious about their dag gummed football.

Don't forget, 7 on 7 is a Texas invention, and a lot of kids across the country play it now...

I wouldn't say Auburn is a terrible job but they weren't top dogs in the 90's. Remember even less than 10 years ago Miami was absolutely dominating draft day?

Auburn has never done that in my lifetime.

(12-07-2012 05:51 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 10:25 AM)orangefan Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...on-the-acc

Dodds' take on a lot of the same recent innuendo fueling discussion on this board. Speculation or real smoke?

If you ask me, why isn't Florida and Georgia to the B1G just as likely a rumor as more ACC schools? Those states bring more value than NC and VA, and UGA delivers GA better than GT. The SEC has no exit fee, and the B1G appears to be promising much bigger $'s than the SEC.

Until the SEC network gets up and running.........................and there's a reason the SEC has no exit fee...............no school in their right minds would leave.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

(12-07-2012 10:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  I wouldn't say Auburn is a terrible job but they weren't top dogs in the 90's. Remember even less than 10 years ago Miami was absolutely dominating draft day?

Auburn has never done that in my lifetime.

Undefeated in 1994, 2004, 2010
In 2004 3 1st round draftees.
In 2010 2 1st round picks including the first overall.

I guess you've been dead for the last 17 years.

Regularly in the top 10 in sports earnings, and in the top 15 in salary for head coaches. Average 86,000 in attendance. Holds multiple consecutive national championships in men's & women's swimming. What has U.N.C. won lately?