Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
8-21 Fluge's BTM email
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1
Rolleyes 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
10m
Obvious take on BTM's info this morning..

Joe Castiglione is the canary-in-coal mine internally at University of Oklahoma.




Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Active B10 advocates for OU receiving invite in 2022/23
WI President, Alvarez
Ohio State, Nebraska AD's Smith & Eichorst
MSU AD Hollis.

3


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Joe Castiglione is Pro-Big Ten. OU Placing Castiglione as President is placing OU in Big Ten. OU has heavy B10 support.

Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
30m
BTM
Big Ten perception:
Presidential Succession at University of Oklahoma resulting in Joe Castiglione as new President looking more likely

1


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
48m
Woah...

BTM has just sent me current Big Ten perception on expansion landscape.

Stand by...




So an Athletic Director is going to take over the entire University by becoming President? Not sure that has ever happened. Might as well give Bob Stoops the University's President spot once Boren steps down as he's probably just as qualified.
08-21-2017 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #2
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
To make this official:

Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV
·
30m
Replying to @GPoole_BI
Should have added WVU. I hear most of the SEC wishes it would have been WVU.




Christopher Lambert
Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV
·
41m
Replying to @twojman and @MitchVingle
B1G wish list: 1. Texas 2. Notre Dame 3. UNC 4. UVA 5. Mizzou




Christopher Lambert
Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV
·
42m
Replying to @twojman
B1G source says Mizzou higher on B1G's list than OU.
08-21-2017 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 664
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-21-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
10m
Obvious take on BTM's info this morning..

Joe Castiglione is the canary-in-coal mine internally at University of Oklahoma.




Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Active B10 advocates for OU receiving invite in 2022/23
WI President, Alvarez
Ohio State, Nebraska AD's Smith & Eichorst
MSU AD Hollis.

3


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Joe Castiglione is Pro-Big Ten. OU Placing Castiglione as President is placing OU in Big Ten. OU has heavy B10 support.

Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
30m
BTM
Big Ten perception:
Presidential Succession at University of Oklahoma resulting in Joe Castiglione as new President looking more likely

1


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
48m
Woah...

BTM has just sent me current Big Ten perception on expansion landscape.

Stand by...




So an Athletic Director is going to take over the entire University by becoming President? Not sure that has ever happened. Might as well give Bob Stoops the University's President spot once Boren steps down as he's probably just as qualified.

If any tweet has ever proven that the Dude of Gopher knows nothing then this one is it. For once the other Dude may be more accurate in his predictions of who is on the B1G's wish list. But I think that list is dated by about 7 or 8 years.

The only way I see Oklahoma headed to the Big 10 is if they can land Texas and Texas wants the Sooners as their travel buddy. So I don't see much of a chance.

BTW: G. Poole is the progenitor of Leather Helmet blog but has been acquaintance of the Dude for about a decade.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2017 01:01 PM by JRsec.)
08-21-2017 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #4
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-21-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
10m
Obvious take on BTM's info this morning..

Joe Castiglione is the canary-in-coal mine internally at University of Oklahoma.




Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Active B10 advocates for OU receiving invite in 2022/23
WI President, Alvarez
Ohio State, Nebraska AD's Smith & Eichorst
MSU AD Hollis.

3


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Joe Castiglione is Pro-Big Ten. OU Placing Castiglione as President is placing OU in Big Ten. OU has heavy B10 support.

Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
30m
BTM
Big Ten perception:
Presidential Succession at University of Oklahoma resulting in Joe Castiglione as new President looking more likely

1


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
48m
Woah...

BTM has just sent me current Big Ten perception on expansion landscape.

Stand by...




So an Athletic Director is going to take over the entire University by becoming President? Not sure that has ever happened. Might as well give Bob Stoops the University's President spot once Boren steps down as he's probably just as qualified.

If any tweet has ever proven that the Dude of Gopher knows nothing then this one is it. For once the other Dude may be more accurate in his predictions of who is on the B1G's wish list. But I think that list is dated by about 7 or 8 years.

The only way I see Oklahoma headed to the Big 10 is if they can land Texas and Texas wants the Sooners as their travel buddy. So I don't see much of a chance.

BTW: G. Poole is the progenitor of Leather Helmet blog but has been acquaintance of the Dude for about a decade.

Poole and the Dude of WV have done several podcasts together over the years as well as published realignment articles. I believe Poole sold that blog but might still work there. Seems unlikely a Georgia blogger would be the Dude's "B1G source". JR, why did you bring this up?
08-21-2017 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 664
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-21-2017 02:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
10m
Obvious take on BTM's info this morning..

Joe Castiglione is the canary-in-coal mine internally at University of Oklahoma.




Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Active B10 advocates for OU receiving invite in 2022/23
WI President, Alvarez
Ohio State, Nebraska AD's Smith & Eichorst
MSU AD Hollis.

3


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
29m
BTM
Joe Castiglione is Pro-Big Ten. OU Placing Castiglione as President is placing OU in Big Ten. OU has heavy B10 support.

Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
30m
BTM
Big Ten perception:
Presidential Succession at University of Oklahoma resulting in Joe Castiglione as new President looking more likely

1


1

Greg Flugaur
Greg Flugaur @flugempire
·
48m
Woah...

BTM has just sent me current Big Ten perception on expansion landscape.

Stand by...




So an Athletic Director is going to take over the entire University by becoming President? Not sure that has ever happened. Might as well give Bob Stoops the University's President spot once Boren steps down as he's probably just as qualified.

If any tweet has ever proven that the Dude of Gopher knows nothing then this one is it. For once the other Dude may be more accurate in his predictions of who is on the B1G's wish list. But I think that list is dated by about 7 or 8 years.

The only way I see Oklahoma headed to the Big 10 is if they can land Texas and Texas wants the Sooners as their travel buddy. So I don't see much of a chance.

BTW: G. Poole is the progenitor of Leather Helmet blog but has been acquaintance of the Dude for about a decade.

Poole and the Dude of WV have done several podcasts together over the years as well as published realignment articles. I believe Poole sold that blog but might still work there. Seems unlikely a Georgia blogger would be the Dude's "B1G source". JR, why did you bring this up?

He probably did sell it, or a portion of it, and I knew he still operated part of it. His old format was fun. There would be a blog piece instead of a thread and then everyone could comment. I wrote a few blogs for him when it was under the old format. One of them got picked up nationally. I had a lot of fun there and they had some great posters. I was actually asked one time if I would like to be a part of one of those podcasts. That wasn't my cup of tea.

10 years ago Lambert had some connections and some credible information. But at the height of the pre Big 12 invitation in the 2010 pre realignment phase he picked up MHver3 got hooked up with Tuxedo Yoda and it all got to be a big circle jerk of conflated information and wild speculation. They started driving hits instead of simply passing on information. That's where he lost his credibility.

I was interested in realignment because I saw the market model as a ploy to break up large states with influence and to divide states between conferences to keep conferences from fully being able to leverage a state's commercial value. It was a winning strategy for the networks only. You will note that ESPN managed to own all of the properties within the ACC & SEC states, but kept most of the states from being a monopoly for the conference. That's why UNC fights any thought that includes N.C. State or another Carolina school from heading to another conference and why Virginia now does the same. Virginia and North Carolina as a block is almost 3/4's as large as Texas in terms of population It is why ESPN permits the perpetuation of the "gentlemen's agreement myth", and why they worked behind the scenes in '91 to keep F.S.U. out of the SEC. They didn't want to negotiate with an SEC that owned the state of Florida.

So I didn't agree with the concept of the market model because it was a ruse. Content is all that ever ultimately mattered because it is the # of eyes on an event that drives that events value. Holding all of the key schools in a state is another way to maximize ad revenue through leverage. If an advertiser wants to reach the markets in that state it has to go through one conference to do so. ESPN hated that. Poole and the Dude were sold on it. I didn't want to be in constant disagreement with them. But time has proven me to be correct, and moving forward even more so. I stated prior to 2010 that the networks would switch from the market model and do so to a pay model based solely on content value and that when that happened there would be many schools and conferences that would catch the short end of the stick. Well it's about to happen.

My information has always come from knowing who the players were, having family and friends literally in the know, and using reason. All I ever wanted to see the SEC do was to add the best possible brands. It was and is the safest way to expand.

Frank the Tank did a great piece back about that time on the priorities of the Big 10 as it pertained to realignment. Oklahoma didn't make that list. The Dude made a big deal about Frank's list without giving Frank much, if any credit. Frank's list then was worked around the market model.

Obviously Texas and Notre Dame would be massive content adds that also carried significant market presence. If Oklahoma has gained steam it is because of content value.

Personally I think that Delany is doing what he has always done, fake left when he wants to drive right. I think Kansas and Oklahoma is a misdirection.
The Big 10 would probably take Kansas to get to Texas. But the only way they take Oklahoma is if Texas insists upon it. That means Texas has to want to head to the Big 10. They don't. So,... no Oklahoma either.

I think the Big 10 might make another run at Virginia, Notre Dame, and North Carolina. I know the ACC GOR doesn't expire until 2036, but that will only be 10 years away after then next round of expansions. Who knows? They could make a pitch for the combination of any of these: Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, or Oklahoma. Remember the PAC rights expire at the same time. They would gain a lot from the additions of Colorado & one of the others.

In the end the Big 10 like the SEC will go for brands. Delany got hoodooed with the market additions of Rutgers & Maryland (which were a nod to Penn State). Next time around they will be going for content.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2017 04:02 PM by JRsec.)
08-21-2017 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,635
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #6
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-21-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was interested in realignment because I saw the market model as a ploy to break up large states with influence and to divide states between conferences to keep conferences from fully being able to leverage a state's commercial value. It was a winning strategy for the networks only. You will note that ESPN managed to own all of the properties within the ACC & SEC states, but kept most of the states from being a monopoly for the conference. That's why UNC fights any thought that includes N.C. State or another Carolina school from heading to another conference and why Virginia now does the same. Virginia and North Carolina as a block is almost 3/4's as large as Texas in terms of population It is why ESPN permits the perpetuation of the "gentlemen's agreement myth", and why they worked behind the scenes in '91 to keep F.S.U. out of the SEC. They didn't want to negotiate with an SEC that owned the state of Florida.

I bring attention to the bolded part because that's one of the reasons I could see Texas ending up in the ACC. ESPN probably fears on some level an SEC with the top brands in TX including the Oklahomas, Arkansas, and LSU.

It's not going to make a lot of sense on many fronts for UT to head there, but if pride gets in the way I could see them taking ESPN's carrot.
08-22-2017 11:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 664
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #7
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-22-2017 11:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was interested in realignment because I saw the market model as a ploy to break up large states with influence and to divide states between conferences to keep conferences from fully being able to leverage a state's commercial value. It was a winning strategy for the networks only. You will note that ESPN managed to own all of the properties within the ACC & SEC states, but kept most of the states from being a monopoly for the conference. That's why UNC fights any thought that includes N.C. State or another Carolina school from heading to another conference and why Virginia now does the same. Virginia and North Carolina as a block is almost 3/4's as large as Texas in terms of population It is why ESPN permits the perpetuation of the "gentlemen's agreement myth", and why they worked behind the scenes in '91 to keep F.S.U. out of the SEC. They didn't want to negotiate with an SEC that owned the state of Florida.

I bring attention to the bolded part because that's one of the reasons I could see Texas ending up in the ACC. ESPN probably fears on some level an SEC with the top brands in TX including the Oklahomas, Arkansas, and LSU.

It's not going to make a lot of sense on many fronts for UT to head there, but if pride gets in the way I could see them taking ESPN's carrot.

I agree, and it's all the more reason that Sankey needs to be tough about who we will and won't take this go around.

Since '91 we've made our list quite clear. I think ESPN has screwed around with it way too much already and it's time we draw a line in the sand. With the CBS contract up in 2034 we do have some leverage.
08-22-2017 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,635
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #8
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-22-2017 11:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-22-2017 11:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was interested in realignment because I saw the market model as a ploy to break up large states with influence and to divide states between conferences to keep conferences from fully being able to leverage a state's commercial value. It was a winning strategy for the networks only. You will note that ESPN managed to own all of the properties within the ACC & SEC states, but kept most of the states from being a monopoly for the conference. That's why UNC fights any thought that includes N.C. State or another Carolina school from heading to another conference and why Virginia now does the same. Virginia and North Carolina as a block is almost 3/4's as large as Texas in terms of population It is why ESPN permits the perpetuation of the "gentlemen's agreement myth", and why they worked behind the scenes in '91 to keep F.S.U. out of the SEC. They didn't want to negotiate with an SEC that owned the state of Florida.

I bring attention to the bolded part because that's one of the reasons I could see Texas ending up in the ACC. ESPN probably fears on some level an SEC with the top brands in TX including the Oklahomas, Arkansas, and LSU.

It's not going to make a lot of sense on many fronts for UT to head there, but if pride gets in the way I could see them taking ESPN's carrot.

I agree, and it's all the more reason that Sankey needs to be tough about who we will and won't take this go around.

Since '91 we've made our list quite clear. I think ESPN has screwed around with it way too much already and it's time we draw a line in the sand. With the CBS contract up in 2034 we do have some leverage.

I think there's a few other things we could do as well to disrupt their operation.

The negotiation for the T1 is a big one, but I think we could also refuse to schedule as many ACC opponents out of conference. The in-state rivalries should remain, of course, but all these extra games should be played with other leagues. That's an immediate dip in content for ESPN...

I would offer as well that a meeting of the minds with B1G officials on a way to carve up the ACC in the future should be undertaken at that point. If we can't trust ESPN to look out for our best interests then we need to look out for our own.
08-22-2017 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 664
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-22-2017 01:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-22-2017 11:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-22-2017 11:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was interested in realignment because I saw the market model as a ploy to break up large states with influence and to divide states between conferences to keep conferences from fully being able to leverage a state's commercial value. It was a winning strategy for the networks only. You will note that ESPN managed to own all of the properties within the ACC & SEC states, but kept most of the states from being a monopoly for the conference. That's why UNC fights any thought that includes N.C. State or another Carolina school from heading to another conference and why Virginia now does the same. Virginia and North Carolina as a block is almost 3/4's as large as Texas in terms of population It is why ESPN permits the perpetuation of the "gentlemen's agreement myth", and why they worked behind the scenes in '91 to keep F.S.U. out of the SEC. They didn't want to negotiate with an SEC that owned the state of Florida.

I bring attention to the bolded part because that's one of the reasons I could see Texas ending up in the ACC. ESPN probably fears on some level an SEC with the top brands in TX including the Oklahomas, Arkansas, and LSU.

It's not going to make a lot of sense on many fronts for UT to head there, but if pride gets in the way I could see them taking ESPN's carrot.

I agree, and it's all the more reason that Sankey needs to be tough about who we will and won't take this go around.

Since '91 we've made our list quite clear. I think ESPN has screwed around with it way too much already and it's time we draw a line in the sand. With the CBS contract up in 2034 we do have some leverage.

I think there's a few other things we could do as well to disrupt their operation.

The negotiation for the T1 is a big one, but I think we could also refuse to schedule as many ACC opponents out of conference. The in-state rivalries should remain, of course, but all these extra games should be played with other leagues. That's an immediate dip in content for ESPN...

I would offer as well that a meeting of the minds with B1G officials on a way to carve up the ACC in the future should be undertaken at that point. If we can't trust ESPN to look out for our best interests then we need to look out for our own.

Again I agree to an extent. I'm still weighing the division of the ACC. It might be more profitable to leave them intact, but that's a thought in process.

But tangentially, why do you suppose ESPN wants those SEC/ACC match ups?
Yes there is the keeping the money in house angle, but they are also handicapping the ability of the SEC or ACC to get two in and propping up the PAC and Big 10 thereby hedging their risk that all 4 regions will not be involved in the CFP. When just 1 region is not represented the numbers sag.

It would not be inconceivable that Florida State and Clemson or Auburn and Alabama could make the playoffs with SOS and just 1 loss. So if you schedule Alabama against F.S.U. and Auburn against Clemson you cut that chance down to virtually nil that more than two of those schools emerge at the end of the season in position for make the CFP.

Those damned games are being scheduled to handicap the placement of the PAC and Big 10 champs.

Check out Wisconsin's schedule. They are a virtual shoe in for the Big 10 CCG. Nebraska has the much harder track and Penn State might as well be playing in the SEC West. But Nebraska isn't the national draw it once was and Penn State is somewhat more of a box office poison since the Sandusky scandal. So we have set up in the Big 10 the winner of Michigan / Ohio State to play Wisconsin in the finals. We have scheduled out the possibility that more than two of Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, and Clemson will be contending at the end. With an upset or two none of them might be in position even if they win their conference.

I lay all of that at the feet of ESPN which figures these potentialities out, and then dangles cash to get the conferences to agree to an arrangement that is designed to yield particular scenarios that ESPN intends to exploit.

So I am in complete agreement that we need those games against the Big 10 or PAC and not the ACC/SEC match ups. ESPN wanted to get away from the early season Big 10 vs Alabama games. It left a Big 10 front-runner in the dirt at the start of the season. When Ohio State beats Oklahoma it kills the Big 12 off early this year. OSU will have to be perfect to make it in. And none of this is by accident. They may not be able to control the outcomes, but they sure know how to set the table!
08-22-2017 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,635
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #10
RE: 8-21 Fluge's BTM email
(08-22-2017 03:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-22-2017 01:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-22-2017 11:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-22-2017 11:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was interested in realignment because I saw the market model as a ploy to break up large states with influence and to divide states between conferences to keep conferences from fully being able to leverage a state's commercial value. It was a winning strategy for the networks only. You will note that ESPN managed to own all of the properties within the ACC & SEC states, but kept most of the states from being a monopoly for the conference. That's why UNC fights any thought that includes N.C. State or another Carolina school from heading to another conference and why Virginia now does the same. Virginia and North Carolina as a block is almost 3/4's as large as Texas in terms of population It is why ESPN permits the perpetuation of the "gentlemen's agreement myth", and why they worked behind the scenes in '91 to keep F.S.U. out of the SEC. They didn't want to negotiate with an SEC that owned the state of Florida.

I bring attention to the bolded part because that's one of the reasons I could see Texas ending up in the ACC. ESPN probably fears on some level an SEC with the top brands in TX including the Oklahomas, Arkansas, and LSU.

It's not going to make a lot of sense on many fronts for UT to head there, but if pride gets in the way I could see them taking ESPN's carrot.

I agree, and it's all the more reason that Sankey needs to be tough about who we will and won't take this go around.

Since '91 we've made our list quite clear. I think ESPN has screwed around with it way too much already and it's time we draw a line in the sand. With the CBS contract up in 2034 we do have some leverage.

I think there's a few other things we could do as well to disrupt their operation.

The negotiation for the T1 is a big one, but I think we could also refuse to schedule as many ACC opponents out of conference. The in-state rivalries should remain, of course, but all these extra games should be played with other leagues. That's an immediate dip in content for ESPN...

I would offer as well that a meeting of the minds with B1G officials on a way to carve up the ACC in the future should be undertaken at that point. If we can't trust ESPN to look out for our best interests then we need to look out for our own.

Again I agree to an extent. I'm still weighing the division of the ACC. It might be more profitable to leave them intact, but that's a thought in process.

But tangentially, why do you suppose ESPN wants those SEC/ACC match ups?
Yes there is the keeping the money in house angle, but they are also handicapping the ability of the SEC or ACC to get two in and propping up the PAC and Big 10 thereby hedging their risk that all 4 regions will not be involved in the CFP. When just 1 region is not represented the numbers sag.

It would not be inconceivable that Florida State and Clemson or Auburn and Alabama could make the playoffs with SOS and just 1 loss. So if you schedule Alabama against F.S.U. and Auburn against Clemson you cut that chance down to virtually nil that more than two of those schools emerge at the end of the season in position for make the CFP.

Those damned games are being scheduled to handicap the placement of the PAC and Big 10 champs.

Check out Wisconsin's schedule. They are a virtual shoe in for the Big 10 CCG. Nebraska has the much harder track and Penn State might as well be playing in the SEC West. But Nebraska isn't the national draw it once was and Penn State is somewhat more of a box office poison since the Sandusky scandal. So we have set up in the Big 10 the winner of Michigan / Ohio State to play Wisconsin in the finals. We have scheduled out the possibility that more than two of Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, and Clemson will be contending at the end. With an upset or two none of them might be in position even if they win their conference.

I lay all of that at the feet of ESPN which figures these potentialities out, and then dangles cash to get the conferences to agree to an arrangement that is designed to yield particular scenarios that ESPN intends to exploit.

So I am in complete agreement that we need those games against the Big 10 or PAC and not the ACC/SEC match ups. ESPN wanted to get away from the early season Big 10 vs Alabama games. It left a Big 10 front-runner in the dirt at the start of the season. When Ohio State beats Oklahoma it kills the Big 12 off early this year. OSU will have to be perfect to make it in. And none of this is by accident. They may not be able to control the outcomes, but they sure know how to set the table!

You make a valid point.

To the division of the ACC, I would argue if we're not getting Texas then the way to make our league stronger is to take some of our sister institutions in the ACC and then maybe add a school like Virginia Tech as well.

If ESPN's plan to enrich itself revolves around keeping the SEC in a weaker position then I'd argue our long term solvency could be threatened.
08-22-2017 06:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.