Using his criteria, and rough estimates in some places, I added a few new schools to the list and tried to evaluate the options. (This is very rudimentary and not scientific at all. For example, if I could not find an athletic budget, I used the average of 11.5 points.) Fewer points are better:

1. UNC 33 points
2. Texas 49 points
3. Duke 55.5
4. Virginia 58
5 OK 59
6 Virginia Tech 71
7 FSU/Georgia Tech tie at 73
9 Kansas 76
10 Wake Forest 78.5
11 Ok State 82
12 NC State 90
13 Baylor 94
14 Clemson 95
15 Louisville 97
16 Miami 100
17 West Virginia 102
18 TCU 105.5
19 Kansas State 119
20 Navy 119.5
21 Iowa S 126
22 Texas Tech 131

(Reminder: MrSECs criteria lifted up new markets, so doubling down in Texas wasn't worth as much as the new market of UNC. So also Clemson is a great fit but doesn't add new markets. This assumes a saturation model is not in effect yet.)

Texas Tech is the lowest - far away from other schools, no "new markets," and doesn't lift up academic status of the conference. Surprisingly, Iowa State was next to last despite being an AAU school in a new state.

Even without offering new markets, Texas still provides good metrics: academics, on field success, and an SEC size stadium. But this doesn't address the A&M issue or any little brothers.

Wake's high score (top 10 of the candidates I looked at) reflects its new market in NC, and proximity to other SEC schools.

After you take the first school in a market, clearly the value of the second one drops so this is definitely a conditional list. For example, if you take UNC, then Duke's score drops (approximately) to an 89, just above NC State.

So could the SEC take UNC, Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma? Sure. But we would have a fight on our hands with the Big 10 and possibly politics with A&M and other little brothers.

I still see a UVA/Duke and UNC/Tech split in Virginia/North Carolina as the most likely option, and based on these metrics it is a fairly even split at 1/6 and 3/4, both totalling seven.

If Oklahoma can come on its own then it is definitely worthwhile. Interestingly enough, based on my math, Georgia Tech receives the same score as FSU, and Kansas is only a little behind that. That would be my cutoff, leaving nine candidates I might consider for the SEC: UNC, Texas, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Kansas.

Realistically, I think UNC, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech and FSU are it. UVA and Duke may not wish to go to the SEC but if they came in a strong grouping, then perhaps they change their minds about our academics. If not, then taking UNC from the Big 10 even while they are under this scandal would be a nice price.

I see the SEC winding up with UNC/Virginia Tech/FSU and Oklahoma. Missouri moves to the west, with the possibility of a third division being created and a "wild card" spot.

Big 10 then could still take Virginia/Duke/GT/Texas or Kansas. Both conferences "win," realignment and with only Oklahoma and Texas gone (or with little brothers) both the ACC and Big 12 could survive. ACC may make a play to grab WV from the Big 12, but the Big 12 taking a few teams from the MWC and the ACC taking teams from the AAC or merging the ACC and Big 12 both would be viable options.

I'd be curious to see more details on the methodology.

(04-14-2016 01:28 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Using his criteria, and rough estimates in some places, I added a few new schools to the list and tried to evaluate the options. (This is very rudimentary and not scientific at all. For example, if I could not find an athletic budget, I used the average of 11.5 points.) Fewer points are better:

1. UNC 33 points
2. Texas 49 points
3. Duke 55.5
4. Virginia 58
5 OK 59
6 Virginia Tech 71
7 FSU/Georgia Tech tie at 73
9 Kansas 76
10 Wake Forest 78.5
11 Ok State 82
12 NC State 90
13 Baylor 94
14 Clemson 95
15 Louisville 97
16 Miami 100
17 West Virginia 102
18 TCU 105.5
19 Kansas State 119
20 Navy 119.5
21 Iowa S 126
22 Texas Tech 131

(Reminder: MrSECs criteria lifted up new markets, so doubling down in Texas wasn't worth as much as the new market of UNC. So also Clemson is a great fit but doesn't add new markets. This assumes a saturation model is not in effect yet.)

Texas Tech is the lowest - far away from other schools, no "new markets," and doesn't lift up academic status of the conference. Surprisingly, Iowa State was next to last despite being an AAU school in a new state.

Even without offering new markets, Texas still provides good metrics: academics, on field success, and an SEC size stadium. But this doesn't address the A&M issue or any little brothers.

Wake's high score (top 10 of the candidates I looked at) reflects its new market in NC, and proximity to other SEC schools.

After you take the first school in a market, clearly the value of the second one drops so this is definitely a conditional list. For example, if you take UNC, then Duke's score drops (approximately) to an 89, just above NC State.

So could the SEC take UNC, Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma? Sure. But we would have a fight on our hands with the Big 10 and possibly politics with A&M and other little brothers.

I still see a UVA/Duke and UNC/Tech split in Virginia/North Carolina as the most likely option, and based on these metrics it is a fairly even split at 1/6 and 3/4, both totalling seven.

If Oklahoma can come on its own then it is definitely worthwhile. Interestingly enough, based on my math, Georgia Tech receives the same score as FSU, and Kansas is only a little behind that. That would be my cutoff, leaving nine candidates I might consider for the SEC: UNC, Texas, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Kansas.

Realistically, I think UNC, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech and FSU are it. UVA and Duke may not wish to go to the SEC but if they came in a strong grouping, then perhaps they change their minds about our academics. If not, then taking UNC from the Big 10 even while they are under this scandal would be a nice price.

I see the SEC winding up with UNC/Virginia Tech/FSU and Oklahoma. Missouri moves to the west, with the possibility of a third division being created and a "wild card" spot.

Big 10 then could still take Virginia/Duke/GT/Texas or Kansas. Both conferences "win," realignment and with only Oklahoma and Texas gone (or with little brothers) both the ACC and Big 12 could survive. ACC may make a play to grab WV from the Big 12, but the Big 12 taking a few teams from the MWC and the ACC taking teams from the AAC or merging the ACC and Big 12 both would be viable options.

The last time from Mr.SEC Texas A&M=8, Carolina=28.5, Penn State=38 and Texas=40, UVa=52, Oklahoma=69.5, Dook=77.5, VT=82.5, Pitt=84 and Missouri=87 (top ten listed only).

What happened to Penn State?

(04-14-2016 02:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:28 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Using his criteria, and rough estimates in some places, I added a few new schools to the list and tried to evaluate the options. (This is very rudimentary and not scientific at all. For example, if I could not find an athletic budget, I used the average of 11.5 points.) Fewer points are better:

1. UNC 33 points
2. Texas 49 points
3. Duke 55.5
4. Virginia 58
5 OK 59
6 Virginia Tech 71
7 FSU/Georgia Tech tie at 73
9 Kansas 76
10 Wake Forest 78.5
11 Ok State 82
12 NC State 90
13 Baylor 94
14 Clemson 95
15 Louisville 97
16 Miami 100
17 West Virginia 102
18 TCU 105.5
19 Kansas State 119
20 Navy 119.5
21 Iowa S 126
22 Texas Tech 131

(Reminder: MrSECs criteria lifted up new markets, so doubling down in Texas wasn't worth as much as the new market of UNC. So also Clemson is a great fit but doesn't add new markets. This assumes a saturation model is not in effect yet.)

Texas Tech is the lowest - far away from other schools, no "new markets," and doesn't lift up academic status of the conference. Surprisingly, Iowa State was next to last despite being an AAU school in a new state.

Even without offering new markets, Texas still provides good metrics: academics, on field success, and an SEC size stadium. But this doesn't address the A&M issue or any little brothers.

Wake's high score (top 10 of the candidates I looked at) reflects its new market in NC, and proximity to other SEC schools.

After you take the first school in a market, clearly the value of the second one drops so this is definitely a conditional list. For example, if you take UNC, then Duke's score drops (approximately) to an 89, just above NC State.

So could the SEC take UNC, Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma? Sure. But we would have a fight on our hands with the Big 10 and possibly politics with A&M and other little brothers.

I still see a UVA/Duke and UNC/Tech split in Virginia/North Carolina as the most likely option, and based on these metrics it is a fairly even split at 1/6 and 3/4, both totalling seven.

If Oklahoma can come on its own then it is definitely worthwhile. Interestingly enough, based on my math, Georgia Tech receives the same score as FSU, and Kansas is only a little behind that. That would be my cutoff, leaving nine candidates I might consider for the SEC: UNC, Texas, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Kansas.

Realistically, I think UNC, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech and FSU are it. UVA and Duke may not wish to go to the SEC but if they came in a strong grouping, then perhaps they change their minds about our academics. If not, then taking UNC from the Big 10 even while they are under this scandal would be a nice price.

I see the SEC winding up with UNC/Virginia Tech/FSU and Oklahoma. Missouri moves to the west, with the possibility of a third division being created and a "wild card" spot.

Big 10 then could still take Virginia/Duke/GT/Texas or Kansas. Both conferences "win," realignment and with only Oklahoma and Texas gone (or with little brothers) both the ACC and Big 12 could survive. ACC may make a play to grab WV from the Big 12, but the Big 12 taking a few teams from the MWC and the ACC taking teams from the AAC or merging the ACC and Big 12 both would be viable options.

The last time from Mr.SEC Texas A&M=8, Carolina=28.5, Penn State=38 and Texas=40, UVa=52, Oklahoma=69.5, Dook=77.5, VT=82.5, Pitt=84 and Missouri=87 (top ten listed only).

What happened to Penn State?

No chance Penn State leaves the Big Ten.

(04-14-2016 10:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:28 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Using his criteria, and rough estimates in some places, I added a few new schools to the list and tried to evaluate the options. (This is very rudimentary and not scientific at all. For example, if I could not find an athletic budget, I used the average of 11.5 points.) Fewer points are better:

1. UNC 33 points
2. Texas 49 points
3. Duke 55.5
4. Virginia 58
5 OK 59
6 Virginia Tech 71
7 FSU/Georgia Tech tie at 73
9 Kansas 76
10 Wake Forest 78.5
11 Ok State 82
12 NC State 90
13 Baylor 94
14 Clemson 95
15 Louisville 97
16 Miami 100
17 West Virginia 102
18 TCU 105.5
19 Kansas State 119
20 Navy 119.5
21 Iowa S 126
22 Texas Tech 131

(Reminder: MrSECs criteria lifted up new markets, so doubling down in Texas wasn't worth as much as the new market of UNC. So also Clemson is a great fit but doesn't add new markets. This assumes a saturation model is not in effect yet.)

Texas Tech is the lowest - far away from other schools, no "new markets," and doesn't lift up academic status of the conference. Surprisingly, Iowa State was next to last despite being an AAU school in a new state.

Even without offering new markets, Texas still provides good metrics: academics, on field success, and an SEC size stadium. But this doesn't address the A&M issue or any little brothers.

Wake's high score (top 10 of the candidates I looked at) reflects its new market in NC, and proximity to other SEC schools.

After you take the first school in a market, clearly the value of the second one drops so this is definitely a conditional list. For example, if you take UNC, then Duke's score drops (approximately) to an 89, just above NC State.

So could the SEC take UNC, Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma? Sure. But we would have a fight on our hands with the Big 10 and possibly politics with A&M and other little brothers.

I still see a UVA/Duke and UNC/Tech split in Virginia/North Carolina as the most likely option, and based on these metrics it is a fairly even split at 1/6 and 3/4, both totalling seven.

If Oklahoma can come on its own then it is definitely worthwhile. Interestingly enough, based on my math, Georgia Tech receives the same score as FSU, and Kansas is only a little behind that. That would be my cutoff, leaving nine candidates I might consider for the SEC: UNC, Texas, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Kansas.

Realistically, I think UNC, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech and FSU are it. UVA and Duke may not wish to go to the SEC but if they came in a strong grouping, then perhaps they change their minds about our academics. If not, then taking UNC from the Big 10 even while they are under this scandal would be a nice price.

I see the SEC winding up with UNC/Virginia Tech/FSU and Oklahoma. Missouri moves to the west, with the possibility of a third division being created and a "wild card" spot.

Big 10 then could still take Virginia/Duke/GT/Texas or Kansas. Both conferences "win," realignment and with only Oklahoma and Texas gone (or with little brothers) both the ACC and Big 12 could survive. ACC may make a play to grab WV from the Big 12, but the Big 12 taking a few teams from the MWC and the ACC taking teams from the AAC or merging the ACC and Big 12 both would be viable options.

The last time from Mr.SEC Texas A&M=8, Carolina=28.5, Penn State=38 and Texas=40, UVa=52, Oklahoma=69.5, Dook=77.5, VT=82.5, Pitt=84 and Missouri=87 (top ten listed only).

What happened to Penn State?

No chance Penn State leaves the Big Ten.

Who would want them now? Baylor may soon be in the same boat and their boat was nothing like the Ship of State that once belonged to Paterno.

(04-14-2016 10:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:28 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Using his criteria, and rough estimates in some places, I added a few new schools to the list and tried to evaluate the options. (This is very rudimentary and not scientific at all. For example, if I could not find an athletic budget, I used the average of 11.5 points.) Fewer points are better:

1. UNC 33 points
2. Texas 49 points
3. Duke 55.5
4. Virginia 58
5 OK 59
6 Virginia Tech 71
7 FSU/Georgia Tech tie at 73
9 Kansas 76
10 Wake Forest 78.5
11 Ok State 82
12 NC State 90
13 Baylor 94
14 Clemson 95
15 Louisville 97
16 Miami 100
17 West Virginia 102
18 TCU 105.5
19 Kansas State 119
20 Navy 119.5
21 Iowa S 126
22 Texas Tech 131

(Reminder: MrSECs criteria lifted up new markets, so doubling down in Texas wasn't worth as much as the new market of UNC. So also Clemson is a great fit but doesn't add new markets. This assumes a saturation model is not in effect yet.)

Texas Tech is the lowest - far away from other schools, no "new markets," and doesn't lift up academic status of the conference. Surprisingly, Iowa State was next to last despite being an AAU school in a new state.

Even without offering new markets, Texas still provides good metrics: academics, on field success, and an SEC size stadium. But this doesn't address the A&M issue or any little brothers.

Wake's high score (top 10 of the candidates I looked at) reflects its new market in NC, and proximity to other SEC schools.

After you take the first school in a market, clearly the value of the second one drops so this is definitely a conditional list. For example, if you take UNC, then Duke's score drops (approximately) to an 89, just above NC State.

So could the SEC take UNC, Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma? Sure. But we would have a fight on our hands with the Big 10 and possibly politics with A&M and other little brothers.

I still see a UVA/Duke and UNC/Tech split in Virginia/North Carolina as the most likely option, and based on these metrics it is a fairly even split at 1/6 and 3/4, both totalling seven.

If Oklahoma can come on its own then it is definitely worthwhile. Interestingly enough, based on my math, Georgia Tech receives the same score as FSU, and Kansas is only a little behind that. That would be my cutoff, leaving nine candidates I might consider for the SEC: UNC, Texas, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Kansas.

Realistically, I think UNC, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech and FSU are it. UVA and Duke may not wish to go to the SEC but if they came in a strong grouping, then perhaps they change their minds about our academics. If not, then taking UNC from the Big 10 even while they are under this scandal would be a nice price.

I see the SEC winding up with UNC/Virginia Tech/FSU and Oklahoma. Missouri moves to the west, with the possibility of a third division being created and a "wild card" spot.

Big 10 then could still take Virginia/Duke/GT/Texas or Kansas. Both conferences "win," realignment and with only Oklahoma and Texas gone (or with little brothers) both the ACC and Big 12 could survive. ACC may make a play to grab WV from the Big 12, but the Big 12 taking a few teams from the MWC and the ACC taking teams from the AAC or merging the ACC and Big 12 both would be viable options.

The last time from Mr.SEC Texas A&M=8, Carolina=28.5, Penn State=38 and Texas=40, UVa=52, Oklahoma=69.5, Dook=77.5, VT=82.5, Pitt=84 and Missouri=87 (top ten listed only).

What happened to Penn State?

No chance Penn State leaves the Big Ten.

There is no chance of 10 of the top 16 are coming to the SEC either.

(04-15-2016 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 10:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:28 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Using his criteria, and rough estimates in some places, I added a few new schools to the list and tried to evaluate the options. (This is very rudimentary and not scientific at all. For example, if I could not find an athletic budget, I used the average of 11.5 points.) Fewer points are better:

1. UNC 33 points
2. Texas 49 points
3. Duke 55.5
4. Virginia 58
5 OK 59
6 Virginia Tech 71
7 FSU/Georgia Tech tie at 73
9 Kansas 76
10 Wake Forest 78.5
11 Ok State 82
12 NC State 90
13 Baylor 94
14 Clemson 95
15 Louisville 97
16 Miami 100
17 West Virginia 102
18 TCU 105.5
19 Kansas State 119
20 Navy 119.5
21 Iowa S 126
22 Texas Tech 131

(Reminder: MrSECs criteria lifted up new markets, so doubling down in Texas wasn't worth as much as the new market of UNC. So also Clemson is a great fit but doesn't add new markets. This assumes a saturation model is not in effect yet.)

Texas Tech is the lowest - far away from other schools, no "new markets," and doesn't lift up academic status of the conference. Surprisingly, Iowa State was next to last despite being an AAU school in a new state.

Even without offering new markets, Texas still provides good metrics: academics, on field success, and an SEC size stadium. But this doesn't address the A&M issue or any little brothers.

Wake's high score (top 10 of the candidates I looked at) reflects its new market in NC, and proximity to other SEC schools.

After you take the first school in a market, clearly the value of the second one drops so this is definitely a conditional list. For example, if you take UNC, then Duke's score drops (approximately) to an 89, just above NC State.

So could the SEC take UNC, Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma? Sure. But we would have a fight on our hands with the Big 10 and possibly politics with A&M and other little brothers.

I still see a UVA/Duke and UNC/Tech split in Virginia/North Carolina as the most likely option, and based on these metrics it is a fairly even split at 1/6 and 3/4, both totalling seven.

If Oklahoma can come on its own then it is definitely worthwhile. Interestingly enough, based on my math, Georgia Tech receives the same score as FSU, and Kansas is only a little behind that. That would be my cutoff, leaving nine candidates I might consider for the SEC: UNC, Texas, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Kansas.

Realistically, I think UNC, Duke, UVA, OK, Virginia Tech and FSU are it. UVA and Duke may not wish to go to the SEC but if they came in a strong grouping, then perhaps they change their minds about our academics. If not, then taking UNC from the Big 10 even while they are under this scandal would be a nice price.

I see the SEC winding up with UNC/Virginia Tech/FSU and Oklahoma. Missouri moves to the west, with the possibility of a third division being created and a "wild card" spot.

Big 10 then could still take Virginia/Duke/GT/Texas or Kansas. Both conferences "win," realignment and with only Oklahoma and Texas gone (or with little brothers) both the ACC and Big 12 could survive. ACC may make a play to grab WV from the Big 12, but the Big 12 taking a few teams from the MWC and the ACC taking teams from the AAC or merging the ACC and Big 12 both would be viable options.

The last time from Mr.SEC Texas A&M=8, Carolina=28.5, Penn State=38 and Texas=40, UVa=52, Oklahoma=69.5, Dook=77.5, VT=82.5, Pitt=84 and Missouri=87 (top ten listed only).

What happened to Penn State?

No chance Penn State leaves the Big Ten.

There is no chance of 10 of the top 16 are coming to the SEC either.

Actually, there is a scenario where at least 14 of those do.

(04-14-2016 01:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd be curious to see more details on the methodology.

Criteria were:
1 Distance from Atlanta, New Orleans, and Nashville (SEC tournament locations)
2 Top 50 markets (new)
3 Population (new)
4 Bowl appearances + NCAA tournament appearances in last ten years (for those MrSEC used I went ahead and used his numbers, except for Baylor, because Baylor was incredibly low)
5 Directors Cup Standings (MrSEC used 2007-2008 I think, I tried to use the same when I could)
6 4-5 star football recruits (this one is probably the most off because I had a hard time tracking down those numbers)
7 Academic fit (worse than, good fit, better than)
8 Athletic spending ranking
9 Football stadium size

Each team was given a number 1-22 for each category. Ties were all given the high number and then the next team took the next available number, example: Team A was ranked 5th, Team B,C, and D all ranked 6th but team E ranked 9th.

(04-15-2016 11:53 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd be curious to see more details on the methodology.

Criteria were:
1 Distance from Atlanta, New Orleans, and Nashville (SEC tournament locations)
2 Top 50 markets (new)
3 Population (new)
4 Bowl appearances + NCAA tournament appearances in last ten years (for those MrSEC used I went ahead and used his numbers, except for Baylor, because Baylor was incredibly low)
5 Directors Cup Standings (MrSEC used 2007-2008 I think, I tried to use the same when I could)
6 4-5 star football recruits (this one is probably the most off because I had a hard time tracking down those numbers)
7 Academic fit (worse than, good fit, better than)
8 Athletic spending ranking
9 Football stadium size

Each team was given a number 1-22 for each category. Ties were all given the high number and then the next team took the next available number, example: Team A was ranked 5th, Team B,C, and D all ranked 6th but team E ranked 9th.

Thanks for posting that.

But, I don't like it. Don't you feel that it places a little too much weight on things that don't really matter or can't really be computed into this sort of thing?

I'd be very interested in a ranking that looked at:

1) Market Size,
2) Population,
3) Athletic Spending, and
4) Stadium Size/Facilities score.

(04-15-2016 12:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 11:53 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd be curious to see more details on the methodology.

Criteria were:
1 Distance from Atlanta, New Orleans, and Nashville (SEC tournament locations)
2 Top 50 markets (new)
3 Population (new)
4 Bowl appearances + NCAA tournament appearances in last ten years (for those MrSEC used I went ahead and used his numbers, except for Baylor, because Baylor was incredibly low)
5 Directors Cup Standings (MrSEC used 2007-2008 I think, I tried to use the same when I could)
6 4-5 star football recruits (this one is probably the most off because I had a hard time tracking down those numbers)
7 Academic fit (worse than, good fit, better than)
8 Athletic spending ranking
9 Football stadium size

Each team was given a number 1-22 for each category. Ties were all given the high number and then the next team took the next available number, example: Team A was ranked 5th, Team B,C, and D all ranked 6th but team E ranked 9th.

Thanks for posting that.

But, I don't like it. Don't you feel that it places a little too much weight on things that don't really matter or can't really be computed into this sort of thing?

I'd be very interested in a ranking that looked at:

1) Market Size,
2) Population,
3) Athletic Spending, and
4) Stadium Size/Facilities score.

Clay Travis leaked the N.C. State & Virginia Tech idea after someone in the conference office used him to do so. Mr. SEC geared his blog then toward selling the idea of a North Carolina and Virginia school in the SEC. It was all groundwork for an ESPN master plan to create two 16 school conferences with the SEC & ACC by dissolving the Big 12.

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame were to be four all in additions to the ACC and Texas A&M, Missouri, N.C. State and Virginia Tech were going to round out the SEC.

North Carolina, Duke, & Virginia nixed the deal, pissed of ESPN, and the fallout led to the LHN, two GOR's to hold antsy and pissed off product in place, resulted in Maryland's somewhat abrupt decision to leave, and gave FOX the time it needed to rally the troops in what had been a new game for them.

Briefly ESPN agreed to Clemson and F.S.U. to the SEC and even scrolled it on their crawler. Notre Dame said they were still game but with a Big East kind of deal. ESPN took it reneged on FSU & Clemson, redoubled their efforts for SECN carriage, and is still trying to figure out how to rescue the plan or at least some form of it.

The ACCN would have been predicated upon those brands and that is why they don't have one.

I think N.D. gave us an clue as to the possible instability in the ACC with their hockey affiliation. It's innocent enough, practical, but also lets that octopus get one tentacle on the escape path just in case.

I don't put much weight on MR. SEC's data.

In the important threads tacked at the top of this board there is information on revenue, attendance, athletic investment, etc. Nothing has changed the priorities.
Texas, Oklahoma, a Virginia school, a North Carolina school and Florida State can add value to our conference but in varying degrees. Of course Notre Dame could but does anyone consider that likely? Clemson by most metrics is a neutral.

Size of undergraduate enrollment, proximity to population centers, and other such stuff isn't as important as actual viewers and percentage of actual viewers who watch college football.

So nothing has changed since 2012 in that regard. In fact the prospect of streaming and the new delivery models that may arise because of it, make North Carolina and Virginia somewhat less attractive and major brands somewhat more attractive. Other than that it is the same. We have a very limited pool of expansion candidates that add to our value. The Big 10 has the same problem.

(04-15-2016 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 12:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 11:53 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd be curious to see more details on the methodology.

Criteria were:
1 Distance from Atlanta, New Orleans, and Nashville (SEC tournament locations)
2 Top 50 markets (new)
3 Population (new)
4 Bowl appearances + NCAA tournament appearances in last ten years (for those MrSEC used I went ahead and used his numbers, except for Baylor, because Baylor was incredibly low)
5 Directors Cup Standings (MrSEC used 2007-2008 I think, I tried to use the same when I could)
6 4-5 star football recruits (this one is probably the most off because I had a hard time tracking down those numbers)
7 Academic fit (worse than, good fit, better than)
8 Athletic spending ranking
9 Football stadium size

Each team was given a number 1-22 for each category. Ties were all given the high number and then the next team took the next available number, example: Team A was ranked 5th, Team B,C, and D all ranked 6th but team E ranked 9th.

Thanks for posting that.

But, I don't like it. Don't you feel that it places a little too much weight on things that don't really matter or can't really be computed into this sort of thing?

I'd be very interested in a ranking that looked at:

1) Market Size,
2) Population,
3) Athletic Spending, and
4) Stadium Size/Facilities score.

Clay Travis leaked the N.C. State & Virginia Tech idea after someone in the conference office used him to do so. Mr. SEC geared his blog then toward selling the idea of a North Carolina and Virginia school in the SEC. It was all groundwork for an ESPN master plan to create two 16 school conferences with the SEC & ACC by dissolving the Big 12.

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame were to be four all in additions to the ACC and Texas A&M, Missouri, N.C. State and Virginia Tech were going to round out the SEC.

North Carolina, Duke, & Virginia nixed the deal, pissed of ESPN, and the fallout led to the LHN, two GOR's to hold antsy and pissed off product in place, resulted in Maryland's somewhat abrupt decision to leave, and gave FOX the time it needed to rally the troops in what had been a new game for them.

Briefly ESPN agreed to Clemson and F.S.U. to the SEC and even scrolled it on their crawler. Notre Dame said they were still game but with a Big East kind of deal. ESPN took it reneged on FSU & Clemson, redoubled their efforts for SECN carriage, and is still trying to figure out how to rescue the plan or at least some form of it.

The ACCN would have been predicated upon those brands and that is why they don't have one.

I think N.D. gave us an clue as to the possible instability in the ACC with their hockey affiliation. It's innocent enough, practical, but also lets that octopus get one tentacle on the escape path just in case.

I don't put much weight on MR. SEC's data.

In the important threads tacked at the top of this board there is information on revenue, attendance, athletic investment, etc. Nothing has changed the priorities.
Texas, Oklahoma, a Virginia school, a North Carolina school and Florida State can add value to our conference but in varying degrees. Of course Notre Dame could but does anyone consider that likely? Clemson by most metrics is a neutral.

Size of undergraduate enrollment, proximity to population centers, and other such stuff isn't as important as actual viewers and percentage of actual viewers who watch college football.

So nothing has changed since 2012 in that regard. In fact the prospect of streaming and the new delivery models that may arise because of it, make North Carolina and Virginia somewhat less attractive and major brands somewhat more attractive. Other than that it is the same. We have a very limited pool of expansion candidates that add to our value. The Big 10 has the same problem.

FSU and Clemson to SEC on ESPN ticker? When did that happen?

MrSEC model may be flawed but it was the best objective analysis I had seen to date. I wanted to add in the Carolina schools because I feel they are up for grabs if certain shifts happen.

(04-15-2016 06:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 12:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 11:53 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd be curious to see more details on the methodology.

Criteria were:
1 Distance from Atlanta, New Orleans, and Nashville (SEC tournament locations)
2 Top 50 markets (new)
3 Population (new)
4 Bowl appearances + NCAA tournament appearances in last ten years (for those MrSEC used I went ahead and used his numbers, except for Baylor, because Baylor was incredibly low)
5 Directors Cup Standings (MrSEC used 2007-2008 I think, I tried to use the same when I could)
6 4-5 star football recruits (this one is probably the most off because I had a hard time tracking down those numbers)
7 Academic fit (worse than, good fit, better than)
8 Athletic spending ranking
9 Football stadium size

Each team was given a number 1-22 for each category. Ties were all given the high number and then the next team took the next available number, example: Team A was ranked 5th, Team B,C, and D all ranked 6th but team E ranked 9th.

Thanks for posting that.

But, I don't like it. Don't you feel that it places a little too much weight on things that don't really matter or can't really be computed into this sort of thing?

I'd be very interested in a ranking that looked at:

1) Market Size,
2) Population,
3) Athletic Spending, and
4) Stadium Size/Facilities score.

Clay Travis leaked the N.C. State & Virginia Tech idea after someone in the conference office used him to do so. Mr. SEC geared his blog then toward selling the idea of a North Carolina and Virginia school in the SEC. It was all groundwork for an ESPN master plan to create two 16 school conferences with the SEC & ACC by dissolving the Big 12.

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame were to be four all in additions to the ACC and Texas A&M, Missouri, N.C. State and Virginia Tech were going to round out the SEC.

North Carolina, Duke, & Virginia nixed the deal, pissed of ESPN, and the fallout led to the LHN, two GOR's to hold antsy and pissed off product in place, resulted in Maryland's somewhat abrupt decision to leave, and gave FOX the time it needed to rally the troops in what had been a new game for them.

Briefly ESPN agreed to Clemson and F.S.U. to the SEC and even scrolled it on their crawler. Notre Dame said they were still game but with a Big East kind of deal. ESPN took it reneged on FSU & Clemson, redoubled their efforts for SECN carriage, and is still trying to figure out how to rescue the plan or at least some form of it.

The ACCN would have been predicated upon those brands and that is why they don't have one.

I think N.D. gave us an clue as to the possible instability in the ACC with their hockey affiliation. It's innocent enough, practical, but also lets that octopus get one tentacle on the escape path just in case.

I don't put much weight on MR. SEC's data.

In the important threads tacked at the top of this board there is information on revenue, attendance, athletic investment, etc. Nothing has changed the priorities.
Texas, Oklahoma, a Virginia school, a North Carolina school and Florida State can add value to our conference but in varying degrees. Of course Notre Dame could but does anyone consider that likely? Clemson by most metrics is a neutral.

Size of undergraduate enrollment, proximity to population centers, and other such stuff isn't as important as actual viewers and percentage of actual viewers who watch college football.

So nothing has changed since 2012 in that regard. In fact the prospect of streaming and the new delivery models that may arise because of it, make North Carolina and Virginia somewhat less attractive and major brands somewhat more attractive. Other than that it is the same. We have a very limited pool of expansion candidates that add to our value. The Big 10 has the same problem.

FSU and Clemson to SEC on ESPN ticker? When did that happen?

MrSEC model may be flawed but it was the best objective analysis I had seen to date. I wanted to add in the Carolina schools because I feel they are up for grabs if certain shifts happen.

My best guess would be sometime around the end of 2012 (maybe mid August).

(04-15-2016 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 06:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  FSU and Clemson to SEC on ESPN ticker? When did that happen?

MrSEC model may be flawed but it was the best objective analysis I had seen to date. I wanted to add in the Carolina schools because I feel they are up for grabs if certain shifts happen.

My best guess would be sometime around the end of 2012 (maybe mid August).

I remember it happening. I think it was during the late Summer/early Fall of 2011, however.

The rumors of A&M coming aboard were hot and heavy. Missouri was presumed to be the 14th although there was uncertainty about that. All of a sudden, ESPN runs a news report saying that the SEC will add A&M, Mizzou, FSU, and Clemson. I remember being shocked at the latter 2 as I hadn't heard any rumors about that previously.

It makes me wonder if the rumors about FSU and Clemson going to the Big 12 the following year weren't some sort of push back internally among those schools for being blocked entry into the SEC by ESPN. Perhaps they were pissed off by the Mouse too?

(04-16-2016 12:17 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 06:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  FSU and Clemson to SEC on ESPN ticker? When did that happen?

MrSEC model may be flawed but it was the best objective analysis I had seen to date. I wanted to add in the Carolina schools because I feel they are up for grabs if certain shifts happen.

My best guess would be sometime around the end of 2012 (maybe mid August).

I remember it happening. I think it was during the late Summer/early Fall of 2011, however.

The rumors of A&M coming aboard were hot and heavy. Missouri was presumed to be the 14th although there was uncertainty about that. All of a sudden, ESPN runs a news report saying that the SEC will add A&M, Mizzou, FSU, and Clemson. I remember being shocked at the latter 2 as I hadn't heard any rumors about that previously.

It makes me wonder if the rumors about FSU and Clemson going to the Big 12 the following year weren't some sort of push back internally among those schools for being blocked entry into the SEC by ESPN. Perhaps they were pissed off by the Mouse too?

It was push back. And that sentiment is still there. I tell you why I want to see them in the SEC. Clemson slams the door on the Southeast. Florida State is the last major brand in the Southeast that is possibly vulnerable. Take those two and nobody back doors our region. The same can't be said about Oklahoma and Texas as they are on the border of 3 P conferences. Going to 18 with those four is our Grand Slam. Get those 4 and going to 20 with UNC in the mix is much more likely whether it is UNC/UVa, or UNC/VaTech, or UNC/Duke.

Better yet, take Clemson and F.S.U. encourage the Big 12 to expand out of the rest of the Southeast ACC schools (Miami, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville) and then wait to see if we can land UNC & Va Tech. The Big 10 might be happy with Duke (strong NY presence) and Virginia. Then the Big 12 could pick up the Northeast ACC schools and create another buffer for the SEC.

(04-16-2016 10:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2016 12:17 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 06:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  FSU and Clemson to SEC on ESPN ticker? When did that happen?

MrSEC model may be flawed but it was the best objective analysis I had seen to date. I wanted to add in the Carolina schools because I feel they are up for grabs if certain shifts happen.

My best guess would be sometime around the end of 2012 (maybe mid August).

I remember it happening. I think it was during the late Summer/early Fall of 2011, however.

The rumors of A&M coming aboard were hot and heavy. Missouri was presumed to be the 14th although there was uncertainty about that. All of a sudden, ESPN runs a news report saying that the SEC will add A&M, Mizzou, FSU, and Clemson. I remember being shocked at the latter 2 as I hadn't heard any rumors about that previously.

It makes me wonder if the rumors about FSU and Clemson going to the Big 12 the following year weren't some sort of push back internally among those schools for being blocked entry into the SEC by ESPN. Perhaps they were pissed off by the Mouse too?

It was push back. And that sentiment is still there. I tell you why I want to see them in the SEC. Clemson slams the door on the Southeast. Florida State is the last major brand in the Southeast that is possibly vulnerable. Take those two and nobody back doors our region. The same can't be said about Oklahoma and Texas as they are on the border of 3 P conferences. Going to 18 with those four is our Grand Slam. Get those 4 and going to 20 with UNC in the mix is much more likely whether it is UNC/UVa, or UNC/VaTech, or UNC/Duke.

Better yet, take Clemson and F.S.U. encourage the Big 12 to expand out of the rest of the Southeast ACC schools (Miami, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville) and then wait to see if we can land UNC & Va Tech. The Big 10 might be happy with Duke (strong NY presence) and Virginia. Then the Big 12 could pick up the Northeast ACC schools and create another buffer for the SEC.

I advocated at one point taking Florida State and Clemson for no more reason than to destabilize the ACC so we could land some other products as well. Of course, FSU and CU would be good additions in their own right.

What I'd be fine with, and some of you already know I like the number 24...is taking a Texahoma 4...Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State. Then pull in a group from the East...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Louisville. Let the Big Ten have UNC and UVA. I'd rather lock up our region and not worry about having too many schools that will find reasons not to be happy here.

The divisions could break down like this...

West: Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri

South: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida State

North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson


This way, ESPN will only have to worry about supporting one conference network. The PAC can add a few old Big 12 teams if they want...

Perhaps Iowa State, Kansas, TCU, and Houston. The league can go for a combo of new markets and AAU schools that should satisfy what they are looking for. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. ESPN can be free to invest in a PAC Network either way and maintain a greater share of the prime content.

The Big Ten can get what they want on the East Coast and ESPN will certainly maintain a share of that contract.

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and perhaps Syracuse.

What they'll be able to get is a large number of decent properties at a bargain price with whatever leftover conferences are left. Notre Dame can affiliate with one of those.

For the SEC's part, they could be in a very strong position due to the amount of content available in a variety of sports. That's the main reason I want to go that large because it creates so many options. All you really have to do is group certain schools together to make sure the traditional match-ups are maintained. Each region carry it's own interest from local fans so it's really not even necessary for fans in Texas, for example, to care about the teams in Florida. They'll have plenty of local teams in each region to keep them entertained. Putting everything under one roof, however, consolidates the wealth and influence.

Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

(04-17-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

ESPN was up to building television markets. Missouri added the 2nd most number of top markets and the 2nd most population. Louisville added market, but more importantly was a compromise for that cobbled together creature called the ACC.

I do like your climate based theory on why species stay within temperate zones however. I didn't realize the ACC people were so climate specific in their needs. Most hominids are more adaptable. But since we are on the topic why did the Big 10 move into Pennsylvania and New Jersey, let alone Maryland?

Conferences didn't think that way until networks showed them a new paradigm for marketing. The whole market concept was once anathema to conference thinking.

So once again you insinuate a position that actually proves my point.

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer we solidify our Southeast first. And we would have in '91 had ESPN not been hatching a new concept. It was after all the last time realignment targets were essentially formed by the conferences. Back then the interference by the networks was less direct.

ESPN is up to making ESPN money...

(04-17-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

ESPN was up to building television markets. Missouri added the 2nd most number of top markets and the 2nd most population. Louisville added market, but more importantly was a compromise for that cobbled together creature called the ACC.

I do like your climate based theory on why species stay within temperate zones however. I didn't realize the ACC people were so climate specific in their needs. Most hominids are more adaptable. But since we are on the topic why did the Big 10 move into Pennsylvania and New Jersey, let alone Maryland?

Conferences didn't think that way until networks showed them a new paradigm for marketing. The whole market concept was once anathema to conference thinking.

So once again you insinuate a position that actually proves my point.

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer we solidify our Southeast first. And we would have in '91 had ESPN not been hatching a new concept. It was after all the last time realignment targets were essentially formed by the conferences. Back then the interference by the networks was less direct.

Things would be quite different if Jake Crouthamel had been more receptive to the ACC's initial call to Syracuse. If Syracuse shows interest, the ACC would have never gotten around to contacting Florida State and the 'noles probably end up in the SEC as #12 w/ Arkansas.
Blame it on those folks in Tallahassee on on Corrigan for being such a good salesman, but Florida State's decision to reject the SEC and join the ACC changed realignment in the southeast for sure.


BTW JR the climate band theory is the work of Jared Diamond (UCLA geography professor and author of the Pulitzer Prize winning, Guns, Germs and Steel).

(04-17-2016 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

ESPN was up to building television markets. Missouri added the 2nd most number of top markets and the 2nd most population. Louisville added market, but more importantly was a compromise for that cobbled together creature called the ACC.

I do like your climate based theory on why species stay within temperate zones however. I didn't realize the ACC people were so climate specific in their needs. Most hominids are more adaptable. But since we are on the topic why did the Big 10 move into Pennsylvania and New Jersey, let alone Maryland?

Conferences didn't think that way until networks showed them a new paradigm for marketing. The whole market concept was once anathema to conference thinking.

So once again you insinuate a position that actually proves my point.

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer we solidify our Southeast first. And we would have in '91 had ESPN not been hatching a new concept. It was after all the last time realignment targets were essentially formed by the conferences. Back then the interference by the networks was less direct.

Things would be quite different if Jake Crouthamel had been more receptive to the ACC's initial call to Syracuse. If Syracuse shows interest, the ACC would have never gotten around to contacting Florida State and the 'noles probably end up in the SEC as #12 w/ Arkansas.
Blame it on those folks in Tallahassee on on Corrigan for being such a good salesman, but Florida State's decision to reject the SEC and join the ACC changed realignment in the southeast for sure.


BTW JR the climate band theory is the work of Jared Diamond (UCLA geography professor and author of the Pulitzer Prize winning, Guns, Germs and Steel).

Gotta love those unique academic projects that receive awards. There have been oodles of them amounting to not much, even theories well received have later been debunked. I'm not saying this one lacks merit, just that it seems rather confining given the adaptability of people.

As to realignment '91, I agree. Arkansas and F.S.U. would have set the SEC up much better and if the ACC had more aggressively moved North at that time, say 5 additions, Delany would never have gained the toe hold he has now, and Penn State would have faced a few more questions. Spurrier probably never goes to South Carolina, Clemson becomes a darling ahead of their present pace, and Realignment would likely be over.