Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1221
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-12-2017 08:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.

What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.

I think we end up waiting for the GOR to expire anyway.

I could see TCU having a landing spot, but the others are going to have a tough time I think.

It's actually easier to place 7 if we only take 4. I really do believe the PAC would go after Tech and T.C.U. if they were available. So if we took the original 4 I mentioned. That's 6. WVU to the ACC makes 7. If Baylor loses their voting rights as part of the conference's sanctions that might do it. But that's a lot of ifs.

One of the assumptions I'm making is that Texas would call for Tech to be included so they could play them every year without using an OOC game.

Texas has been pretty good about scheduling good games OOC so I think they will probably want to continue doing that while also playing a healthy portion of regional teams while also playing more marquis match-ups in league. At least, if I was them then that's what I would want.

I'm not sure how attached to Kansas they are. I don't think they were fighting to get them into the PAC a few years ago. Taking all 3 major brands in the Big 12 would probably aid Texas' decision on some level, but I'm not sure UT is as concerned about keeping KU on the schedule as they are schools like Tech.
06-13-2017 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1222
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-13-2017 03:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 08:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.

I think we end up waiting for the GOR to expire anyway.

I could see TCU having a landing spot, but the others are going to have a tough time I think.

It's actually easier to place 7 if we only take 4. I really do believe the PAC would go after Tech and T.C.U. if they were available. So if we took the original 4 I mentioned. That's 6. WVU to the ACC makes 7. If Baylor loses their voting rights as part of the conference's sanctions that might do it. But that's a lot of ifs.

One of the assumptions I'm making is that Texas would call for Tech to be included so they could play them every year without using an OOC game.

Texas has been pretty good about scheduling good games OOC so I think they will probably want to continue doing that while also playing a healthy portion of regional teams while also playing more marquis match-ups in league. At least, if I was them then that's what I would want.

I'm not sure how attached to Kansas they are. I don't think they were fighting to get them into the PAC a few years ago. Taking all 3 major brands in the Big 12 would probably aid Texas' decision on some level, but I'm not sure UT is as concerned about keeping KU on the schedule as they are schools like Tech.

With SEC brands on their schedule as conference games their need for a quality P5 opponent will be fulfilled in house. They should be able to use 2 of their OOC games to rotate Tech, T.C.U. and Rice.

But hey, I have no problem with Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU except we won't earn as much. I think Kansas makes the better choice #3 and I think Tech would wind up in the PAC with T.C.U.
06-13-2017 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1223
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Just a couple of thoughts.

What if the key to getting a deal done with the Big 12 powers is something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Here's my thinking...

I think it's possible that Texas Tech could attempt to ride the coattails of UT, , but it would be an addition purely for political reasons and not content driven.

TCU, by contrast, is in the middle of DFW which eases travel even for teams in that region of the county. Perhaps most importantly, TCU has achieved a level of consistent success that has eluded Texas Tech for the most part. It's flat out hard to recruit to Lubbock whereas TCU is swimming in the middle of one of the largest talent pools in the country.

From a political perspective though, Texas Tech could still probably influence the Legislature to force UT to take them along. Adding TCU though maximizes exposure in every major region of Texas. I think just as important, it keeps travel reasonable for the schools and fans out there. This market is truly gigantic and dominating every corner of it, I think, will pay dividends.

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

Baylor is done most likely after their scandal plagued years, but having 4 TX schools in the Power leagues is a good way to retain regionalism.
10-10-2017 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1224
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-10-2017 11:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Just a couple of thoughts.

What if the key to getting a deal done with the Big 12 powers is something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Here's my thinking...

I think it's possible that Texas Tech could attempt to ride the coattails of UT, , but it would be an addition purely for political reasons and not content driven.

TCU, by contrast, is in the middle of DFW which eases travel even for teams in that region of the county. Perhaps most importantly, TCU has achieved a level of consistent success that has eluded Texas Tech for the most part. It's flat out hard to recruit to Lubbock whereas TCU is swimming in the middle of one of the largest talent pools in the country.

From a political perspective though, Texas Tech could still probably influence the Legislature to force UT to take them along. Adding TCU though maximizes exposure in every major region of Texas. I think just as important, it keeps travel reasonable for the schools and fans out there. This market is truly gigantic and dominating every corner of it, I think, will pay dividends.

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

Baylor is done most likely after their scandal plagued years, but having 4 TX schools in the Power leagues is a good way to retain regionalism.

I think it's certainly an interesting concept. West Virginia then is eligible for the ACC.

But in crunching the valuations Texas and Oklahoma can cover two lesser values and still turn us a profit. They can't cover three and do it. And outside of Texas and Oklahoma there is nobody in the Big 12 that pays their own way, not even Kansas. But that is also true for the Big 10. And since the Big 10 can't take OSU due to academics and they can't take Texas Tech still a problem with academics just not as much of one and they are definite problem logistically. I would think the Big 10 would have to be thinking that if they offered a foursome it would be Kansas and Iowa State to go with Texas and Oklahoma.

Therefore I think Texas and Oklahoma cover their in state schools. So Texa-homa is feasible, but not six. And Texa-homa likely trumps a B1G offer for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

So if you add L.S.U., A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri to the Texa-homa four you get pretty much everything that Texas could want and a lot of things for Oklahoma to build upon. With Texas and A&M you don't need T.C.U. to carry DFW completely. Annual games can still be played at Jerry World for the sake of SEC exposure. A&M/TTU could be played annually at that site, Arkansas / Okl. St., and of course Texas/OU. L.S.U. could schedule a neutral site game in Houston if need be.

But remember if we move on the Big 12 in that kind of a way and succeed then the B1G is going to double down on the ACC in 2035. So we need to save 2 slots for either North Carolina & Duke, or Clemson and Florida State or for North Carolina and Virginia Tech unless we truly want to go gaudy and take 6 to move to 24.
10-11-2017 12:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1225
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
[quote='AllTideUp' pid='14663280' dateline='1507696066'

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.
[/quote]

I forget the article, but someone tied to KU was asked if the Sec would be interested in adding the Jayhawks and he said the SEC wasn't too interested. This was before Mizzou was added I believe. Kansas investing in their greatest weakness is one way to help ensure they might have a landing spot should the Big 12 implode. I don't see any sec President turning down KU's application unless the payouts decrease.
10-11-2017 12:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1226
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 12:44 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  [quote='AllTideUp' pid='14663280' dateline='1507696066'

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

I forget the article, but someone tied to KU was asked if the Sec would be interested in adding the Jayhawks and he said the SEC wasn't too interested. This was before Mizzou was added I believe. Kansas investing in their greatest weakness is one way to help ensure they might have a landing spot should the Big 12 implode. I don't see any sec President turning down KU's application unless the payouts decrease.
[/quote]

Attendance, Gross Total Revenue, and projected Business Valuations all are below the SEC MEAN and say the will not add to the bottom line. A state of under 3 million doesn't help their cause either.

For Kansas to be included either ESPN has to pay for them, or they represent a second for either Texas or Oklahoma.
10-11-2017 02:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1227
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I could see ESPN paying to get Kansas in.

It's a very solid brand in that region of the country and one of the very few national draws for basketball. I know basketball doesn't really pay the bills, but making sure the ratings for the SECN and other ESPN properties are solid through that portion of the year is still a good reason to invest. Especially when we move to a more streaming focused model, ESPN isn't going to want to give customers a reason to only subscribe during certain portions of the year. So I think they'll try to acquire as much good content year round as they can.

I've thought for a while that if ESPN could pick any 4 for the SEC out of the Big 12 that it would be UT, OU, OSU, and KU. It may not be that simple of course.
10-11-2017 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1228
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.
10-11-2017 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1229
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.
10-11-2017 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1230
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.

It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State
10-11-2017 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1231
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.

It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State

This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.
(This post was last modified: 10-11-2017 09:21 PM by JRsec.)
10-11-2017 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1232
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 04:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.

It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State

This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.

I can see that you must have gotten the same information.04-cheers
10-12-2017 04:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1233
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-12-2017 04:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 04:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.

It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State

This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.

I can see that you must have gotten the same information.04-cheers

Hardly, the last guy to lay out that scenario was the Dude when he was discussing his stuff with a hidden source from Bucknuts.

I just simply agree that at some point if the disparity continues to grow with regard to revenue that it is reasonable to assume that the Big 10 and SEC will become more alluring to the present members of the ACC. And if branding within each sport continues to play a major factor in viewer participation and the market continues to reward brand on brand competition in any sport, then it makes sense that one day the SEC will earn more and pay more for football brands and the Big 10 will earn more and pay more for both football and basketball brands, but won't pay as much as the SEC for football brands.

When that day comes Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and possibly N.C. State will be of primary interest to the SEC. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame will likely be of interest to the Big 10.

It's also why the Big 12 is such a complicated issue. I strongly suspect that the Big 10 or SEC would each be wary of extending more than two slots to present Big 12 schools at the risk of losing future slots for key targets within the ACC.

It is why I'm thinking more and more about the future creation of a conference of those schools left behind in the Big 12 and ACC which would keep P status but obviously would not be the beneficiary of the highest payouts, although they would likely make about what the Big 12 makes now only with a network.

But if that happens then the SEC and Big 10 only have two slots left each because we are likely looking at 16. It is why I posted the new thread on the possible division that way. There are many different combinations that would work if that approach was taken.

But if the Big 10 and SEC could only take two each from the ACC who would they pick and why is a great question to ask.

There are huge reasons why the Big 10 has long been after Notre Dame. It is the only school that consistently digs into their shares in the largest Northern cities. Landing Notre Dame gives them greater advertising leverage in those markets because with Notre Dame in pocket there is not another alternative for advertisers to get into those markets on Saturday's without paying the Big 10 top dollar. And if Notre Dame is one of the choices then taking a long road into the South is out of the question so they go for the school that wraps up their desires in the Northeast, Virginia / or Virginia Tech.

With the SEC the big question would be brand or markets. If it is brand then Florida State and Clemson would be the priorities. If it is markets then whichever Virginia school didn't head to the Big 10 and North Carolina would be the priorities. I could even see North Carolina and Duke being the pairing. It will really depend on what the focus is at the time. Now I'm not saying any of these schools want either the Big 10 or SEC but I am saying money, much more of it, will be the catalyst.

Then Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and perhaps Iowa State can head to the PAC.

If that happens everyone else, without perhaps Baylor, forms a pretty decent conference of their own and that solves a lot of problems.

The most secure 3 conferences get what they want.
If Markets mixed with Branding it would be:
Notre Dame and Virginia to the Big 10
North Carolina and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State to the PAC

And a new conference is born:
Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Duke, Louisville, N.C. State, Wake Forest

With the exception of West Virginia that is a conference of little brothers and privates.

Now if the moves are simply a matter of economics then literally anything could happen, conference sizes could swell to almost league size, and the one that generates the most money would likely win the most brands. I can't see how that would be healthy to any of the sports long term. Right now the SEC generates the largest amount of money and it's not really that close. 7.3 billion to 5.7 billion to 3.7 billion to 3.0 billion to 2.9 billion (with N.D. as a partial).

I have to think that nobody really wants that gap to grow. The Big 10 and SEC don't really desire to be sprawling monstrosities. The PAC really doesn't want to have to grow now but they need the revenue and the markets. And the top brands in the ACC will want to be paid accordingly, particularly the top brands in the top states.

It's just human nature to want more, especially when so many revenue streams are no longer as dependable as they once were. So the suggested scenario sustains the level of status and pay (or enhances it) for 64 of the 65 schools now enjoying it. It allows the strong some reasonable but measured growth. And it provides equal access to the post season play for all. And it does so while still allowing the economic mobility that a few top schools would like. With a guaranteed slot for secondary state schools, schools like Texas and Oklahoma, North Carolina and Virginia would find the latitude to advance without fear they were condemning their fellow state schools to less.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 01:09 PM by JRsec.)
10-12-2017 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1234
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-12-2017 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 04:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 04:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I would have no particular objection to that.

It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State

This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.

I can see that you must have gotten the same information.04-cheers

Hardly, the last guy to lay out that scenario was the Dude when he was discussing his stuff with a hidden source from Bucknuts.

I just simply agree that at some point if the disparity continues to grow with regard to revenue that it is reasonable to assume that the Big 10 and SEC will become more alluring to the present members of the ACC. And if branding within each sport continues to play a major factor in viewer participation and the market continues to reward brand on brand competition in any sport, then it makes sense that one day the SEC will earn more and pay more for football brands and the Big 10 will earn more and pay more for both football and basketball brands, but won't pay as much as the SEC for football brands.

When that day comes Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and possibly N.C. State will be of primary interest to the SEC. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame will likely be of interest to the Big 10.

It's also why the Big 12 is such a complicated issue. I strongly suspect that the Big 10 or SEC would each be wary of extending more than two slots to present Big 12 schools at the risk of losing future slots for key targets within the ACC.

It is why I'm thinking more and more about the future creation of a conference of those schools left behind in the Big 12 and ACC which would keep P status but obviously would not be the beneficiary of the highest payouts, although they would likely make about what the Big 12 makes now only with a network.

But if that happens then the SEC and Big 10 only have two slots left each because we are likely looking at 16. It is why I posted the new thread on the possible division that way. There are many different combinations that would work if that approach was taken.

But if the Big 10 and SEC could only take two each from the ACC who would they pick and why is a great question to ask.

There are huge reasons why the Big 10 has long been after Notre Dame. It is the only school that consistently digs into their shares in the largest Northern cities. Landing Notre Dame gives them greater advertising leverage in those markets because with Notre Dame in pocket there is not another alternative for advertisers to get into those markets on Saturday's without paying the Big 10 top dollar. And if Notre Dame is one of the choices then taking a long road into the South is out of the question so they go for the school that wraps up their desires in the Northeast, Virginia / or Virginia Tech.

With the SEC the big question would be brand or markets. If it is brand then Florida State and Clemson would be the priorities. If it is markets then whichever Virginia school didn't head to the Big 10 and North Carolina would be the priorities. I could even see North Carolina and Duke being the pairing. It will really depend on what the focus is at the time. Now I'm not saying any of these schools want either the Big 10 or SEC but I am saying money, much more of it, will be the catalyst.

Then Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and perhaps Iowa State can head to the PAC.

If that happens everyone else, without perhaps Baylor, forms a pretty decent conference of their own and that solves a lot of problems.

The most secure 3 conferences get what they want.
If Markets mixed with Branding it would be:
Notre Dame and Virginia to the Big 10
North Carolina and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State to the PAC

And a new conference is born:
Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Duke, Louisville, N.C. State, Wake Forest

With the exception of West Virginia that is a conference of little brothers and privates.

Now if the moves are simply a matter of economics then literally anything could happen, conference sizes could swell to almost league size, and the one that generates the most money would likely win the most brands. I can't see how that would be healthy to any of the sports long term. Right now the SEC generates the largest amount of money and it's not really that close. 7.3 billion to 5.7 billion to 3.7 billion to 3.0 billion to 2.9 billion (with N.D. as a partial).

I have to think that nobody really wants that gap to grow. The Big 10 and SEC don't really desire to be sprawling monstrosities. The PAC really doesn't want to have to grow now but they need the revenue and the markets. And the top brands in the ACC will want to be paid accordingly, particularly the top brands in the top states.

It's just human nature to want more, especially when so many revenue streams are no longer as dependable as they once were. So the suggested scenario sustains the level of status and pay (or enhances it) for 64 of the 65 schools now enjoying it. It allows the strong some reasonable but measured growth. And it provides equal access to the post season play for all. And it does so while still allowing the economic mobility that a few top schools would like. With a guaranteed slot for secondary state schools, schools like Texas and Oklahoma, North Carolina and Virginia would find the latitude to advance without fear they were condemning their fellow state schools to less.

Don't be too disappointed when things play out as I have stated.
8 conference games, 2-3 games with the opposite conference (i.e. Carolina would play their annual game with UVa and could rotate with Wake and Duke). I think you will see at least 11 games a year against P teams with one season opener against a lesser opponent (this will hold true for everybody).
I'm not too happy about it, but the BOG is taking Carolina (and State) in a different direction from the University I graduated from. The quadrupling of research dollars in the last few years is only the tip if the iceberg. The partnership of the University and IBM (Watson) in RTP re: cancer research is about to explode and the politicians in Raleigh are looking to capitalize. It won't be too long before we will be another Johns Hopkins or Northwestern (more graduate students than UG).
10-12-2017 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1235
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-12-2017 02:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 04:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 04:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State

This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.

I can see that you must have gotten the same information.04-cheers

Hardly, the last guy to lay out that scenario was the Dude when he was discussing his stuff with a hidden source from Bucknuts.

I just simply agree that at some point if the disparity continues to grow with regard to revenue that it is reasonable to assume that the Big 10 and SEC will become more alluring to the present members of the ACC. And if branding within each sport continues to play a major factor in viewer participation and the market continues to reward brand on brand competition in any sport, then it makes sense that one day the SEC will earn more and pay more for football brands and the Big 10 will earn more and pay more for both football and basketball brands, but won't pay as much as the SEC for football brands.

When that day comes Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and possibly N.C. State will be of primary interest to the SEC. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame will likely be of interest to the Big 10.

It's also why the Big 12 is such a complicated issue. I strongly suspect that the Big 10 or SEC would each be wary of extending more than two slots to present Big 12 schools at the risk of losing future slots for key targets within the ACC.

It is why I'm thinking more and more about the future creation of a conference of those schools left behind in the Big 12 and ACC which would keep P status but obviously would not be the beneficiary of the highest payouts, although they would likely make about what the Big 12 makes now only with a network.

But if that happens then the SEC and Big 10 only have two slots left each because we are likely looking at 16. It is why I posted the new thread on the possible division that way. There are many different combinations that would work if that approach was taken.

But if the Big 10 and SEC could only take two each from the ACC who would they pick and why is a great question to ask.

There are huge reasons why the Big 10 has long been after Notre Dame. It is the only school that consistently digs into their shares in the largest Northern cities. Landing Notre Dame gives them greater advertising leverage in those markets because with Notre Dame in pocket there is not another alternative for advertisers to get into those markets on Saturday's without paying the Big 10 top dollar. And if Notre Dame is one of the choices then taking a long road into the South is out of the question so they go for the school that wraps up their desires in the Northeast, Virginia / or Virginia Tech.

With the SEC the big question would be brand or markets. If it is brand then Florida State and Clemson would be the priorities. If it is markets then whichever Virginia school didn't head to the Big 10 and North Carolina would be the priorities. I could even see North Carolina and Duke being the pairing. It will really depend on what the focus is at the time. Now I'm not saying any of these schools want either the Big 10 or SEC but I am saying money, much more of it, will be the catalyst.

Then Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and perhaps Iowa State can head to the PAC.

If that happens everyone else, without perhaps Baylor, forms a pretty decent conference of their own and that solves a lot of problems.

The most secure 3 conferences get what they want.
If Markets mixed with Branding it would be:
Notre Dame and Virginia to the Big 10
North Carolina and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State to the PAC

And a new conference is born:
Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Duke, Louisville, N.C. State, Wake Forest

With the exception of West Virginia that is a conference of little brothers and privates.

Now if the moves are simply a matter of economics then literally anything could happen, conference sizes could swell to almost league size, and the one that generates the most money would likely win the most brands. I can't see how that would be healthy to any of the sports long term. Right now the SEC generates the largest amount of money and it's not really that close. 7.3 billion to 5.7 billion to 3.7 billion to 3.0 billion to 2.9 billion (with N.D. as a partial).

I have to think that nobody really wants that gap to grow. The Big 10 and SEC don't really desire to be sprawling monstrosities. The PAC really doesn't want to have to grow now but they need the revenue and the markets. And the top brands in the ACC will want to be paid accordingly, particularly the top brands in the top states.

It's just human nature to want more, especially when so many revenue streams are no longer as dependable as they once were. So the suggested scenario sustains the level of status and pay (or enhances it) for 64 of the 65 schools now enjoying it. It allows the strong some reasonable but measured growth. And it provides equal access to the post season play for all. And it does so while still allowing the economic mobility that a few top schools would like. With a guaranteed slot for secondary state schools, schools like Texas and Oklahoma, North Carolina and Virginia would find the latitude to advance without fear they were condemning their fellow state schools to less.

Don't be too disappointed when things play out as I have stated.
8 conference games, 2-3 games with the opposite conference (i.e. Carolina would play their annual game with UVa and could rotate with Wake and Duke). I think you will see at least 11 games a year against P teams with one season opener against a lesser opponent (this will hold true for everybody).
I'm not too happy about it, but the BOG is taking Carolina (and State) in a different direction from the University I graduated from. The quadrupling of research dollars in the last few years is only the tip if the iceberg. The partnership of the University and IBM (Watson) in RTP re: cancer research is about to explode and the politicians in Raleigh are looking to capitalize. It won't be too long before we will be another Johns Hopkins or Northwestern (more graduate students than UG).

I could see your academic alliances, but Florida State doesn't even fit that group. I also don't see how the Big 10 is going to lop off Purdue and Indiana. And if they lopped of Purdue then there is no hope at all for Georgia Tech. Yeah, Virginia, UNC, and even N.C. State might make some kind of academic jump, but the scenario you lay out at least will not happen within our lifetimes and I'm assuming you are at least 50.

After the FBI gets through draining the backwater swamp of corruption that grew up in between the ideal of Amateurism and the Pay for Play that has existed outside the realm of taxation we will finally have what we have always needed. Two distinct type of conferences. We will have Academic consortia aligned around research interests, and we will have athletic conferences. The models we currently have are too inflexible for the way the world has evolved. So eventually the need for the hypocrisy to hold the two together will be dropped.

Cost of playing will keep sports teams regional. Academic associations will not be hampered by distance. So I'm not worried at all. All present indicators reveal a world in which the alignment that you proposed will never be needed.
10-12-2017 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1236
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Just as a reference JR.
Do you know where the largest concentrations of B1G alumni are on the east coast?
New York
Washington, DC
RTP
Atlanta
central Florida
10-15-2017 06:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1237
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-15-2017 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  Just as a reference JR.
Do you know where the largest concentrations of B1G alumni are on the east coast?
New York
Washington, DC
RTP
Atlanta
central Florida
There is no University that delivers NYC. North Carolina still has more people in the state that do not live in the RTP than those who do. The University of Georgia still carries roughly 60% of Atlanta viewers. And Florida State is the strongest in support in North Florida toward the Gulf and splits Jacksonville with Florida.

The only addition that would deliver what the Big 10 needs would be a Virginia school which would deliver quite a bit of D.C.. Having one North Carolina (State) school would be a solid addition. And I have always thought that Syracuse would be a solid addition for them to compliment what Rutgers delivers.

But the school they truly need to maximize what they already have is Notre Dame.

Georgia Tech would not deliver Atlanta for them in any kind of viewer based pay model and Florida State without Miami doesn't deliver Florida.

This is why I wouldn't be upset if the SEC ever added USF or UCF. We enjoy having the top brand in the state (although they have been pretty sorry in on field production as of late). But UF doesn't give us the majority of the state anymore but they do win the plurality. UF and any other Florida school would deliver a simple majority. I favor USF because of their location in Tampa and because they are Gulf side which UF doesn't cover as well now as they did in 1960-70.

That's why however I could see the SEC simply going for F.S.U. and not worrying about the rest of the state. Having #1 and #2 in a state like Florida or Texas is essentially like having the #1 brand in smaller states.

Also after the FBI gets through I strongly suspect we will move toward having two separate entities at each school, a taxable Athletic Department and a tax exempt Academic Department. Donations to athletics will likely be non deductible and those made to academics tax deductible. I see absolutely no reason why Athletic Departments and Academic Departments have to be part of the same "Conference". Academic consortia and Athletic conferences could easily be in two distinctly different groups.

Since Athletics will likely take a funding hit, playing your neighboring states will wind up being preferred to covering a 13 or 14 state area.

It may truly wind up being something akin to the Old Southern Conference again.
10-15-2017 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1238
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-15-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  Just as a reference JR.
Do you know where the largest concentrations of B1G alumni are on the east coast?
New York
Washington, DC
RTP
Atlanta
central Florida
There is no University that delivers NYC. North Carolina still has more people in the state that do not live in the RTP than those who do. The University of Georgia still carries roughly 60% of Atlanta viewers. And Florida State is the strongest in support in North Florida toward the Gulf and splits Jacksonville with Florida.

The only addition that would deliver what the Big 10 needs would be a Virginia school which would deliver quite a bit of D.C.. Having one North Carolina (State) school would be a solid addition. And I have always thought that Syracuse would be a solid addition for them to compliment what Rutgers delivers.

But the school they truly need to maximize what they already have is Notre Dame.

Georgia Tech would not deliver Atlanta for them in any kind of viewer based pay model and Florida State without Miami doesn't deliver Florida.

This is why I wouldn't be upset if the SEC ever added USF or UCF. We enjoy having the top brand in the state (although they have been pretty sorry in on field production as of late). But UF doesn't give us the majority of the state anymore but they do win the plurality. UF and any other Florida school would deliver a simple majority. I favor USF because of their location in Tampa and because they are Gulf side which UF doesn't cover as well now as they did in 1960-70.

That's why however I could see the SEC simply going for F.S.U. and not worrying about the rest of the state. Having #1 and #2 in a state like Florida or Texas is essentially like having the #1 brand in smaller states.

Also after the FBI gets through I strongly suspect we will move toward having two separate entities at each school, a taxable Athletic Department and a tax exempt Academic Department. Donations to athletics will likely be non deductible and those made to academics tax deductible. I see absolutely no reason why Athletic Departments and Academic Departments have to be part of the same "Conference". Academic consortia and Athletic conferences could easily be in two distinctly different groups.

Since Athletics will likely take a funding hit, playing your neighboring states will wind up being preferred to covering a 13 or 14 state area.

It may truly wind up being something akin to the Old Southern Conference again.

The SEC just needs to buy the Big 12.
10-17-2017 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,899
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #1239
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-17-2017 02:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC just needs to buy the Big 12.

Perhaps something like this...

The SEC agrees to purchase the XII in its entirety, preserving the GoR through its current term to protect the current schools (they may even choose to extend for an additional period). After that term, the SEC may vote to retain or release schools. The agreement to purchase may come with a clause stating that "upon the expiration of the GoR term, the SEC has the right to retain or release any and all schools acquired through the purchase. Should the SEC decide to retain a school, that school shall be bound to the SEC for X years...blah blah blah...".

There is the possibility that all 10 would be kept or just Texas and Oklahoma.

With the SEC 14 + XII 10:

Southwest: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
North: Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia
Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
East: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina
10-17-2017 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1240
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-07-2013 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2013 09:58 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  
(07-07-2013 06:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-07-2013 01:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 10:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It would be fun to grow a burr in the Buckeye's backside.

I bet the SEC would pull a lot of kids away from the B1G with addition of Cincy...

Would the rest of the SEC really care to? Certainly Kentucky might like it considering all the Ohio recruiting they are trying to do but who else would be for that move instead of a move with some of the other potentials stated in this thread?
The SEC would care greatly for its network exposure in sixth largest state. It's that same reason the Big10 just had to have Maryland. Even though Maryland isn't really very good.

That's why I wouldn't be surprised if we ever went to 18. We pick up two more states to the West if the Big 12 goes and use that as an opportunity to get West Virginia and one more maybe Cincinnati. Then if Virginia or North Carolina ever come calling we could still move to 20 or 24.

If anything ever happens to the ACC the PAC and Big 10 are going to 20 or more as well anyway. And if nothing happens to the ACC we have 4 new states, a slither of the beltway, and a much more travel friendly West division: Arkansas, Kansas/KState, Oklahoma/OSU, Missouri, L.S.U. & Texas A&M.

Central division: Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State, Tenn., Vandy

East division: Cincinnati/ECU, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, S. Carolina, WVU

SEC schools will earn close to 44 million at the end of this year for all TV right. The Big 12 will earn about 35 million per team for all rights and that is an average. Texas will make about 51 million and Oklahoma about 43 million and the rest a lot less. Therefore adding the whole Big 12 just drags down the payouts for the SEC. Since their rights expire in 2024-5 there is no need to buy the Big 12. For one they aren't worth it and second I don't even know if that is possible.

It's just easier to wait and take what we want.
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2017 05:26 PM by JRsec.)
10-17-2017 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.