(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

A point of order: In Florida, FSU is no backup plan to recruits. They are regarded as a blue-chip football program right up there with the top SEC teams.

That said, the ACC is clearly a distant second-fiddle to the SEC in terms of brand value in Florida, because the whole culture of Florida football is SEC-oriented. Even the vast majority of FSU fans prefer the SEC to the ACC and wish FSU was in the SEC.

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

I get it.....if the athletes don't have the grades to get into an ACC school then they go down to a SEC school.

Great read in the initial post. If I were BXII commish I would extend invites to BYU, UNM, UNLV, and Cincinnati (for WVU's sake). UNM will vault ahead of the Texas schools outside of the top 5 conferences while UNLV will surpass the Cali schools outside of the PAC for recruits. It's really simple logic. New markets that can maximize certain recruiting grounds without upsetting any balance.

(05-11-2013 06:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  Great read in the initial post. If I were BXII commish I would extend invites to BYU, UNM, UNLV, and Cincinnati (for WVU's sake). UNM will vault ahead of the Texas schools outside of the top 5 conferences while UNLV will surpass the Cali schools outside of the PAC for recruits. It's really simple logic. New markets that can maximize certain recruiting grounds without upsetting any balance.

I'm glad you're not the B12 commish...

(05-11-2013 06:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

I get it.....if the athletes don't have the grades to get into an ACC school then they go down to and SEC school.

Absolutely... and better grades doesn't always mean smarter kids. Feel free to flatter yourself though.

(05-11-2013 06:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

A point of order: In Florida, FSU is no backup plan to recruits. They are regarded as a blue-chip football program right up there with the top SEC teams.

That said, the ACC is clearly a distant second-fiddle to the SEC in terms of brand value in Florida, because the whole culture of Florida football is SEC-oriented. Even the vast majority of FSU fans prefer the SEC to the ACC and wish FSU was in the SEC.

I am not talking any one school because clearly you can always find compares. I am more talking the conference as a whole and I think you support my point.

(05-11-2013 06:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  Great read in the initial post. If I were BXII commish I would extend invites to BYU, UNM, UNLV, and Cincinnati (for WVU's sake). UNM will vault ahead of the Texas schools outside of the top 5 conferences while UNLV will surpass the Cali schools outside of the PAC for recruits. It's really simple logic. New markets that can maximize certain recruiting grounds without upsetting any balance.

I'm glad you're not the B12 commish...

UNM....he/she/it must be trolling.....or a dumb wal-heel Ha Ha. Its the same kind of simple logic that causes UNC to put up signs asking people to not stand up during football games........that leads to really excited crowds...!!!

(05-11-2013 07:51 PM)Bacca Buc Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  Great read in the initial post. If I were BXII commish I would extend invites to BYU, UNM, UNLV, and Cincinnati (for WVU's sake). UNM will vault ahead of the Texas schools outside of the top 5 conferences while UNLV will surpass the Cali schools outside of the PAC for recruits. It's really simple logic. New markets that can maximize certain recruiting grounds without upsetting any balance.

I'm glad you're not the B12 commish...

UNM....he/she/it must be trolling.....or a dumb wal-heel Ha Ha. Its the same kind of simple logic that causes UNC to put up signs asking people to not stand up during football games........that leads to really excited crowds...!!!

They just want to prevent people getting the wine and cheese knocked out of their hands.... well that, and the fact that the very finest educated folks just never stand.....it's just so.....SEC like.

(05-11-2013 06:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  Great read in the initial post. If I were BXII commish I would extend invites to BYU, UNM, UNLV, and Cincinnati (for WVU's sake). UNM will vault ahead of the Texas schools outside of the top 5 conferences while UNLV will surpass the Cali schools outside of the PAC for recruits. It's really simple logic. New markets that can maximize certain recruiting grounds without upsetting any balance.

UNM and UNLV are academic weak links, have low budgets on football despite heavily subsidized overall budgets, and offer no recruiting ground. We can do better.

The entire state of New Mexico offers fewer TV sets than Orlando.

BYU, UConn, UC, UCF, and USF are well ahead of those two. Maybe even Memphis or ECU as well.

UNM will be pretty good in a few years with Davie recruiting Texas. Just remember to kiss my boots when it happens.

Having lived there for a while, I've considered UNM as an addition to the Big 12. A big problem is that aside from overall population concerns, another issue with UNM is that more people in NM care about futbol than football. It's a plus that they are passionate about their hoops, but despite being a state flagship school and offering TT a potential western rivalry, I just don't expect this to happen.

(05-11-2013 09:28 PM)esayem Wrote:  UNM will be pretty good in a few years with Davie recruiting Texas. Just remember to kiss my boots when it happens.

He's a good coach but money, recruiting grounds, and no games in tx limit te upside there. He may win there but they won't be a candidate. No tv brand value, recruiting value, or market upside compared to other options.

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Limited footprint, limited brand recognition, no network prospects, and few peers for Texas and Oklahoma are a recipe for a conference circa 1960 to 1970, but not in 2013. The obstacles are a lot more difficult to overcome than the gloss remark made to salve feelings on this issue.

The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

Without FSU and Miami, the ACC would be even weaker compared to the SEC.

(05-11-2013 04:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:56 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  LSU popularity has also spilled into eastern Tejas...

Yes, Houston has an enormous LSU alumni base, and the state of Texas even makes money off it by selling Texas license plates that have the LSU logo on them, LOL.

Texas didn't specifically make a lsu plate like they do for the rest of the schools in texas, the lsu alumni association got it. the plate is under organizations. Any organization can get a plate if they wanted to. these are some organizations who have a texas plate; US olympic committee, YMCA, a red grapefruit <---no joke, organ donor, blood donor, 4-h, texas masons, the cotton bowl (jerry jones is so full of himself), Houston rodeo, and so on

https://rts.texasonline.state.tx.us/NASA...0&pltid=98

(05-12-2013 01:05 AM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 has been the second-best football conference during the BCS era and didn't miss a beat when Nebraska left. It was #2 this past season despite losing Texas A/M.

As for brand image, the Big 12's rests with Texas and Oklahoma. But, that's true of all conferences: It's the top teams that create the brand. The B1G brand is set by Michigan and Ohio State, not Northwestern and Minnesota. Texas and Oklahoma are two true blue-bloods so that's not a bad situation to be in, which is why they signed a very lucrative media deal.

Big 12 is set for media and bowl revenue for the next 10 years. What happens after that, who knows? That's a long time in college athletics.

If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

Without FSU and Miami, the ACC would be even weaker compared to the SEC.

Without Alabama and Florida, the SEC would be weaker too?

I don't understand the point.

(05-12-2013 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 01:05 AM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

Without FSU and Miami, the ACC would be even weaker compared to the SEC.

Without Alabama and Florida, the SEC would be weaker too?

I don't understand the point.

Same applies to the other P5 Leagues not named:
Big XII weaker without Texas/Oklahoma
B1G weaker without Ohio State/Michigan
Pac 12 weaker without Southern Cal/Oregon...

(05-12-2013 02:57 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 04:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 03:56 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  LSU popularity has also spilled into eastern Tejas...

Yes, Houston has an enormous LSU alumni base, and the state of Texas even makes money off it by selling Texas license plates that have the LSU logo on them, LOL.

Texas didn't specifically make a lsu plate like they do for the rest of the schools in texas, the lsu alumni association got it. the plate is under organizations.

I didn't say that Texas made LSU plates under the same program they make Texas school plates, only that they sell the plates and make money off of them, which they do. From the description of the LSU plate:

"From the $30 specialty plate fee, $22 goes to the state highway fund to acquire right-of-way, construct, maintain and police public roadways and to administer Texas traffic and safety laws on those roads."

Beyond that, it doesn't surprise me that there is a whole laundry list of organizations that can have plates. Most states have those same long lists these days. More revenue.

(05-12-2013 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 01:05 AM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 06:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 01:21 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:18 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  If Texas AM starts dominating Texas recruiting by being in the SEC than Texas will have an issue. Will Texas sit still? I doubt it. The danger of the SEC deal (enhanced if the Big 12 adds Florida) is the direct competition between the Big 12 and SEC.

That direct competition has not worked so well for the ACC which clearly is second best in football. I doubt it will be better for the Big12. It is just a matter of time before Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC given the current path they are on. Of course, this could be Slives long term plan to keep the Pac-12 out of Texas and to reinforce the SEC dominance.

Pretty sweet conference:
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

How in the world does having FSU and Miami in the state of Florida hurt the ACC?

The point being the ACC has had a lot of overlap with the SEC and they are the backup plan for most recruits. It's like Stanford and Berkely. If you can get in to Stanford you go.

Without FSU and Miami, the ACC would be even weaker compared to the SEC.

Without Alabama and Florida, the SEC would be weaker too?

I don't understand the point.

I am responding to the point that the ACC is weaker by competing in the state of Florida. I disagree with it, as the ACC would be in a worse position if it withdrew from Florida and dropped its Florida members.

I must be reading this wrong, but the idea that the ACC would be stronger without Fl State/Miami is absurd. However, the ACC would be stronger by creating divisions that have Fl State/Miami/Clemson anchoring a southern divison opposite of one anchored by Va Tech/NC and the northeast scools.