The B1G and the ACC struggled to match the SEC's number at 14, and the the SEC went and did it again..........made arrangements to leap to 16 (with Texas and Oklahoma, no less).
How does the B1G respond?
Steal from the ACC, borrow from the west coast?
Texas and Oklahoma still haven't joined the SEC, and probably won't for several years, but the pressure is now on the B1G to add two more teams.
You remember once the B1G invited Penn State, it took forever for that conference to add #12 in Nebraska. The B1G no longer has that luxury of time to corral #15 and #16, but the pickings are getting pretty slim and the B1G's standards are sooooo high.
Before we worry about the SEC going to 20 or 24 or 30, it is necessary to understand how the B1G can even get to 16 and maintain their footprint and have cohesion within their conference.
The B1G's choices are very limited. Here are 4, I'm sure there are others but everything else comes with strings or have to be part of "packaged" deals.
1-Notre Dame....no explanation needed
2-Pitt.....academic integrity within the footprint
3-Boston College....market play (which was successful in the past (see Rutgers/Maryland) and completes the NE corridor
4-Kansas....helps shore up the west and least has a marketable product
Can the B1G move now without UVa, Carolina and Duke or going all the way to the west coast?
What ever they can do....they need to do now or run the risk of being left behind.
(04-14-2022 05:26 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The B1G and the ACC struggled to match the SEC's number at 14, and the the SEC went and did it again..........made arrangements to leap to 16 (with Texas and Oklahoma, no less).
How does the B1G respond?
Steal from the ACC, borrow from the west coast?
Texas and Oklahoma still haven't joined the SEC, and probably won't for several years, but the pressure is now on the B1G to add two more teams.
You remember once the B1G invited Penn State, it took forever for that conference to add #12 in Nebraska. The B1G no longer has that luxury of time to corral #15 and #16, but the pickings are getting pretty slim and the B1G's standards are sooooo high.
Before we worry about the SEC going to 20 or 24 or 30, it is necessary to understand how the B1G can even get to 16 and maintain their footprint and have cohesion within their conference.
The B1G's choices are very limited. Here are 4, I'm sure there are others but everything else comes with strings or have to be part of "packaged" deals.
1-Notre Dame....no explanation needed
2-Pitt.....academic integrity within the footprint
3-Boston College....market play (which was successful in the past (see Rutgers/Maryland) and completes the NE corridor
4-Kansas....helps shore up the west and least has a marketable product
Can the B1G move now without UVa, Carolina and Duke or going all the way to the west coast?
What ever they can do....they need to do now or run the risk of being left behind.
From a financial perspective, only Notre Dame would be accretive to the B1G’s long term interests. But Notre Dame wants football independence and is also committed to the ACC (and ESPN) for the next 14 years. The current relationship with the ACC addresses Notre Dame’s core needs. Membership in any conference, including the B1G, would be seen as a negative. Even the contracted games against the ACC provide ideal access to boosters and recruits…Notre Dame football has actually flourished during its time with the ACC. There would have to be a major change in Notre Dame’s financial and/or football fortunes before entertaining membership in a football conference.
Expansion with either Kansas and Pitt would be dilutive. These programs are classic “even-numbered” expansion candidates. They both meet the initial profile hurdle and have upside synergies (Jayhawks basketball and Pitt rivalries multiplier). The B1G was able to incorporate Rutgers into its last expansion…therefore, Kansas and Pitt could be considered only if the right situation presents itself.
Boston College does not fit the B1G profile…the enrollment is not large, it’s not a research powerhouse (and not an AAU member), it’s not public nor a land-grant institution. ND gets a pass on meeting these requirements because it has a blue blood football pedigree and long-standing rivalries with B1G members. BC is not a viable candidate.
At this point, it’s probably better for the B1G to not pursue small 1/2 school additions. Maybe prepare contingencies for game-changing scenarios…a large defection from the PAC or elimination of GORs.
Agreed!!
Btw, why is the B1G do reluctant on NC State??
(04-14-2022 01:03 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed!!
Btw, why is the B1G do reluctant on NC State??
AAU membership and expanding only into adjacent states are two criteria the B1G has wanted in the past, although perhaps next time they expand they will be more flexible. Adding a Virginia school along with NC State would also build the bridge to NC and cover that part of the criteria, at least.
I think the Big 10 needs to win over UVA/UNC/Duke to ensure that if the ACC breaks up that they land institutionally compatible schools. Those 3 + ND gets them to 18, which is a doable number or they push on to 20 with 2 of Pitt, Kansas, GT, or Miami.
If the SEC goes to 20 with UNC/UVA/FSU/Clemson this puts the Big 10 in a very disadvantaged position. The ACC could conceivably live on as a tweener league and ND would not be dislodged.
The Big 10 needs to force a near complete ACC implosion to stay on pace with the SEC.
Have conversations with the SEC and see if Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri are somewhat "expendable" for lack of a better word? How Clemson and Florida State and minus those three help their bottom line?
BIG takes Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, USC and UCLA.
SEC grabs Florida State, Clemson, VT, NC State, Notre Dame, Pitt and Georgia Tech.
Miami, Duke, Syracuse and a handful of PAC schools will have to fall into place somewhere?
I think people overlook how valuable the states of Arizona and California are.
Just my crazy post on this topic, nothing serious.
(04-14-2022 04:19 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 01:03 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed!!
Btw, why is the B1G do reluctant on NC State??
AAU membership and expanding only into adjacent states are two criteria the B1G has wanted in the past, although perhaps next time they expand they will be more flexible. Adding a Virginia school along with NC State would also build the bridge to NC and cover that part of the criteria, at least.
AAU is a verbal fiction. It's easier to say AAU than it is describe a typical B10 type university then define in such a way to ensure that you did not leave Cincy in the definition. Remember, Nebraska was invited with the B10 knowing they were being tossed out of AAU. They knew that because Mary Sue Coleman at UM knew that.
No one wants to say "I hate Syracuse", or "Cincy is beneath us". That's why anytime a conference OFFICIAL, not an individual school coach or AD speaks on the subject, they use the phrase "AAU like" or "Qualities like AAU", etc. They then allow the media to run with that and it helps to keep NY, PA, Ohio and Indiana politicians off the backs of PSU and OSU and IU.
VT and NC State are more like Big 10 schools than UNC or UVa because they are closer in mindset to Ivies than to Big 10 schools with the exception of Michigan and NW. Of course you have to keep in mind that the Big 10 is a deeply non-Southern group of entities.
(04-14-2022 05:01 PM)cubucks Wrote: [ -> ]Have conversations with the SEC and see if Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri are somewhat "expendable" for lack of a better word? How Clemson and Florida State and minus those three help their bottom line?
BIG takes Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, USC and UCLA.
SEC grabs Florida State, Clemson, VT, NC State, Notre Dame, Pitt and Georgia Tech.
Miami, Duke, Syracuse and a handful of PAC schools will have to fall into place somewhere?
I think people overlook how valuable the states of Arizona and California are.
Just my crazy post on this topic, nothing serious.
USC, Arizona State, Arizona, and Utah would make a good addition to a western branch of the SEC. Politically Arizona and Utah fit the Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma culture fairly well, and while USC on the surface does not, it is more like the Southwest than any of the other California schools. Colorado is now mostly California expats.
(04-14-2022 05:12 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 04:19 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 01:03 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed!!
Btw, why is the B1G do reluctant on NC State??
AAU membership and expanding only into adjacent states are two criteria the B1G has wanted in the past, although perhaps next time they expand they will be more flexible. Adding a Virginia school along with NC State would also build the bridge to NC and cover that part of the criteria, at least.
AAU is a verbal fiction. It's easier to say AAU than it is describe a typical B10 type university then define in such a way to ensure that you did not leave Cincy in the definition. Remember, Nebraska was invited with the B10 knowing they were being tossed out of AAU. They knew that because Mary Sue Coleman at UM knew that.
No one wants to say "I hate Syracuse", or "Cincy is beneath us". That's why anytime a conference OFFICIAL, not an individual school coach or AD speaks on the subject, they use the phrase "AAU like" or "Qualities like AAU", etc. They then allow the media to run with that and it helps to keep NY, PA, Ohio and Indiana politicians off the backs of PSU and OSU and IU.
VT and NC State are more like Big 10 schools than UNC or UVa because they are closer in mindset to Ivies than to Big 10 schools with the exception of Michigan and NW. Of course you have to keep in mind that the Big 10 is a deeply non-Southern group of entities.
I wouldn't have a single negative thing to say if NC State and VT were part of the BIG. Those would be two great additions.
(04-14-2022 06:21 PM)cubucks Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 05:12 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 04:19 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 01:03 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed!!
Btw, why is the B1G do reluctant on NC State??
AAU membership and expanding only into adjacent states are two criteria the B1G has wanted in the past, although perhaps next time they expand they will be more flexible. Adding a Virginia school along with NC State would also build the bridge to NC and cover that part of the criteria, at least.
AAU is a verbal fiction. It's easier to say AAU than it is describe a typical B10 type university then define in such a way to ensure that you did not leave Cincy in the definition. Remember, Nebraska was invited with the B10 knowing they were being tossed out of AAU. They knew that because Mary Sue Coleman at UM knew that.
No one wants to say "I hate Syracuse", or "Cincy is beneath us". That's why anytime a conference OFFICIAL, not an individual school coach or AD speaks on the subject, they use the phrase "AAU like" or "Qualities like AAU", etc. They then allow the media to run with that and it helps to keep NY, PA, Ohio and Indiana politicians off the backs of PSU and OSU and IU.
VT and NC State are more like Big 10 schools than UNC or UVa because they are closer in mindset to Ivies than to Big 10 schools with the exception of Michigan and NW. Of course you have to keep in mind that the Big 10 is a deeply non-Southern group of entities.
I wouldn't have a single negative thing to say if NC State and VT were part of the BIG. Those would be two great additions.
I think Miami, GT, NC State and VT would serve the B10 well. None of the 4 will attempt tell Michigan and Ohio State what to do. They open up the entire south east and they all have demographics (males) that likely to support football for the next 3-5 decades. Take these four and put them in a division with MD and Penn State.
The BIG is much more likely to be able to acquire 6-9 Pac 12 schools.
The only way they add from ACC, is with UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, Clemson, and FSU.
But the SEC makes much more sense for the ACC.
The networks are going to want a P2 split North-South. Fox for BIG and ESPN for SEC, which is a tad ironic
(04-14-2022 05:01 PM)cubucks Wrote: [ -> ]Have conversations with the SEC and see if Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri are somewhat "expendable" for lack of a better word? How Clemson and Florida State and minus those three help their bottom line?
BIG takes Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, USC and UCLA.
SEC grabs Florida State, Clemson, VT, NC State, Notre Dame, Pitt and Georgia Tech.
Miami, Duke, Syracuse and a handful of PAC schools will have to fall into place somewhere?
I think people overlook how valuable the states of Arizona and California are.
Just my crazy post on this topic, nothing serious.
One does have to wonder how much longer Tennessee can stay in the SEC. They are washed up as a football power.
Adding insult to injury, the addition of Texas and Oklahoma will only tend to keep The Vols as an afterthought in SEC championship discussions.
(04-14-2022 12:47 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 05:26 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The B1G and the ACC struggled to match the SEC's number at 14, and the the SEC went and did it again..........made arrangements to leap to 16 (with Texas and Oklahoma, no less).
How does the B1G respond?
Steal from the ACC, borrow from the west coast?
Texas and Oklahoma still haven't joined the SEC, and probably won't for several years, but the pressure is now on the B1G to add two more teams.
You remember once the B1G invited Penn State, it took forever for that conference to add #12 in Nebraska. The B1G no longer has that luxury of time to corral #15 and #16, but the pickings are getting pretty slim and the B1G's standards are sooooo high.
Before we worry about the SEC going to 20 or 24 or 30, it is necessary to understand how the B1G can even get to 16 and maintain their footprint and have cohesion within their conference.
The B1G's choices are very limited. Here are 4, I'm sure there are others but everything else comes with strings or have to be part of "packaged" deals.
1-Notre Dame....no explanation needed
2-Pitt.....academic integrity within the footprint
3-Boston College....market play (which was successful in the past (see Rutgers/Maryland) and completes the NE corridor
4-Kansas....helps shore up the west and least has a marketable product
Can the B1G move now without UVa, Carolina and Duke or going all the way to the west coast?
What ever they can do....they need to do now or run the risk of being left behind.
From a financial perspective, only Notre Dame would be accretive to the B1G’s long term interests. But Notre Dame wants football independence and is also committed to the ACC (and ESPN) for the next 14 years. The current relationship with the ACC addresses Notre Dame’s core needs. Membership in any conference, including the B1G, would be seen as a negative. Even the contracted games against the ACC provide ideal access to boosters and recruits…Notre Dame football has actually flourished during its time with the ACC. There would have to be a major change in Notre Dame’s financial and/or football fortunes before entertaining membership in a football conference.
Expansion with either Kansas and Pitt would be dilutive. These programs are classic “even-numbered” expansion candidates. They both meet the initial profile hurdle and have upside synergies (Jayhawks basketball and Pitt rivalries multiplier). The B1G was able to incorporate Rutgers into its last expansion…therefore, Kansas and Pitt could be considered only if the right situation presents itself.
Boston College does not fit the B1G profile…the enrollment is not large, it’s not a research powerhouse (and not an AAU member), it’s not public nor a land-grant institution. ND gets a pass on meeting these requirements because it has a blue blood football pedigree and long-standing rivalries with B1G members. BC is not a viable candidate.
At this point, it’s probably better for the B1G to not pursue small 1/2 school additions. Maybe prepare contingencies for game-changing scenarios…a large defection from the PAC or elimination of GORs.
When the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland everybody thought Delany was crazy. How would they pay for themselves?
Actually, even though "cable is dead" Rutgers and Maryland have contributed significantly to the B1G's bottom line.
Would Notre Dame make more money for the B1G than any other addition.....probably, is it the only addition that could make the B1G more.....No.
(04-15-2022 05:13 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 12:47 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 05:26 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The B1G and the ACC struggled to match the SEC's number at 14, and the the SEC went and did it again..........made arrangements to leap to 16 (with Texas and Oklahoma, no less).
How does the B1G respond?
Steal from the ACC, borrow from the west coast?
Texas and Oklahoma still haven't joined the SEC, and probably won't for several years, but the pressure is now on the B1G to add two more teams.
You remember once the B1G invited Penn State, it took forever for that conference to add #12 in Nebraska. The B1G no longer has that luxury of time to corral #15 and #16, but the pickings are getting pretty slim and the B1G's standards are sooooo high.
Before we worry about the SEC going to 20 or 24 or 30, it is necessary to understand how the B1G can even get to 16 and maintain their footprint and have cohesion within their conference.
The B1G's choices are very limited. Here are 4, I'm sure there are others but everything else comes with strings or have to be part of "packaged" deals.
1-Notre Dame....no explanation needed
2-Pitt.....academic integrity within the footprint
3-Boston College....market play (which was successful in the past (see Rutgers/Maryland) and completes the NE corridor
4-Kansas....helps shore up the west and least has a marketable product
Can the B1G move now without UVa, Carolina and Duke or going all the way to the west coast?
What ever they can do....they need to do now or run the risk of being left behind.
From a financial perspective, only Notre Dame would be accretive to the B1G’s long term interests. But Notre Dame wants football independence and is also committed to the ACC (and ESPN) for the next 14 years. The current relationship with the ACC addresses Notre Dame’s core needs. Membership in any conference, including the B1G, would be seen as a negative. Even the contracted games against the ACC provide ideal access to boosters and recruits…Notre Dame football has actually flourished during its time with the ACC. There would have to be a major change in Notre Dame’s financial and/or football fortunes before entertaining membership in a football conference.
Expansion with either Kansas and Pitt would be dilutive. These programs are classic “even-numbered” expansion candidates. They both meet the initial profile hurdle and have upside synergies (Jayhawks basketball and Pitt rivalries multiplier). The B1G was able to incorporate Rutgers into its last expansion…therefore, Kansas and Pitt could be considered only if the right situation presents itself.
Boston College does not fit the B1G profile…the enrollment is not large, it’s not a research powerhouse (and not an AAU member), it’s not public nor a land-grant institution. ND gets a pass on meeting these requirements because it has a blue blood football pedigree and long-standing rivalries with B1G members. BC is not a viable candidate.
At this point, it’s probably better for the B1G to not pursue small 1/2 school additions. Maybe prepare contingencies for game-changing scenarios…a large defection from the PAC or elimination of GORs.
When the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland everybody thought Delany was crazy. How would they pay for themselves?
Actually, even though "cable is dead" Rutgers and Maryland have contributed significantly to the B1G's bottom line.
Would Notre Dame make more money for the B1G than any other addition.....probably, is it the only addition that could make the B1G more.....No.
Maybe if Tier 3 media is your only revenue source, then the Rutgers expansion contributes to your bottom-line. Rutgers football has absolutely been the anchor sports team on the BTN. Jersey and nearby New York City have a lot of eyeballs…and Rutgers is tasked with keeping B1G football more accessible in that market.
In terms of contribution to the overall financial health of the conference during the past decade, IMO Rutgers would rank a distant #14. Rutgers will be a mouth-to-feed for the foreseeable future. Rutgers does offer a wonderful market for recruits and students…and it provides excellent risk mitigation in case Penn State or Maryland have wandering eyes. Rutgers has potential, but I’m not convinced that it has a positive contribution to the bottom-line.
IMO to be financially accretive, an athletic department needs to be in the top half of the membership hierarchy. For example, Texas A&M, Texas and Oklahoma are all accretive to the SEC. Those universities add revenues to all conference members. On the other hand, expansion with Pitt & Syracuse (or Colorado & Utah, or Maryland & Rutgers) were not financially accretive in a traditional sense. ESPN has an extremely favorable contract with the ACC, and used its leverage to expand its holdings…allowing legacy ACC members to claw-back some of the value given to ESPN.
Excluding SEC members, the only programs that add better than average value to the B1G are probably Notre Dame, Florida State, UNC, Duke, USC, UCLA, Stanford and Washington.
(04-15-2022 12:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2022 05:13 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 12:47 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2022 05:26 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The B1G and the ACC struggled to match the SEC's number at 14, and the the SEC went and did it again..........made arrangements to leap to 16 (with Texas and Oklahoma, no less).
How does the B1G respond?
Steal from the ACC, borrow from the west coast?
Texas and Oklahoma still haven't joined the SEC, and probably won't for several years, but the pressure is now on the B1G to add two more teams.
You remember once the B1G invited Penn State, it took forever for that conference to add #12 in Nebraska. The B1G no longer has that luxury of time to corral #15 and #16, but the pickings are getting pretty slim and the B1G's standards are sooooo high.
Before we worry about the SEC going to 20 or 24 or 30, it is necessary to understand how the B1G can even get to 16 and maintain their footprint and have cohesion within their conference.
The B1G's choices are very limited. Here are 4, I'm sure there are others but everything else comes with strings or have to be part of "packaged" deals.
1-Notre Dame....no explanation needed
2-Pitt.....academic integrity within the footprint
3-Boston College....market play (which was successful in the past (see Rutgers/Maryland) and completes the NE corridor
4-Kansas....helps shore up the west and least has a marketable product
Can the B1G move now without UVa, Carolina and Duke or going all the way to the west coast?
What ever they can do....they need to do now or run the risk of being left behind.
From a financial perspective, only Notre Dame would be accretive to the B1G’s long term interests. But Notre Dame wants football independence and is also committed to the ACC (and ESPN) for the next 14 years. The current relationship with the ACC addresses Notre Dame’s core needs. Membership in any conference, including the B1G, would be seen as a negative. Even the contracted games against the ACC provide ideal access to boosters and recruits…Notre Dame football has actually flourished during its time with the ACC. There would have to be a major change in Notre Dame’s financial and/or football fortunes before entertaining membership in a football conference.
Expansion with either Kansas and Pitt would be dilutive. These programs are classic “even-numbered” expansion candidates. They both meet the initial profile hurdle and have upside synergies (Jayhawks basketball and Pitt rivalries multiplier). The B1G was able to incorporate Rutgers into its last expansion…therefore, Kansas and Pitt could be considered only if the right situation presents itself.
Boston College does not fit the B1G profile…the enrollment is not large, it’s not a research powerhouse (and not an AAU member), it’s not public nor a land-grant institution. ND gets a pass on meeting these requirements because it has a blue blood football pedigree and long-standing rivalries with B1G members. BC is not a viable candidate.
At this point, it’s probably better for the B1G to not pursue small 1/2 school additions. Maybe prepare contingencies for game-changing scenarios…a large defection from the PAC or elimination of GORs.
When the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland everybody thought Delany was crazy. How would they pay for themselves?
Actually, even though "cable is dead" Rutgers and Maryland have contributed significantly to the B1G's bottom line.
Would Notre Dame make more money for the B1G than any other addition.....probably, is it the only addition that could make the B1G more.....No.
Maybe if Tier 3 media is your only revenue source, then the Rutgers expansion contributes to your bottom-line. Rutgers football has absolutely been the anchor sports team on the BTN. Jersey and nearby New York City have a lot of eyeballs…and Rutgers is tasked with keeping B1G football more accessible in that market.
In terms of contribution to the overall financial health of the conference during the past decade, IMO Rutgers would rank a distant #14. Rutgers will be a mouth-to-feed for the foreseeable future. Rutgers does offer a wonderful market for recruits and students…and it provides excellent risk mitigation in case Penn State or Maryland have wandering eyes. Rutgers has potential, but I’m not convinced that it has a positive contribution to the bottom-line.
IMO to be financially accretive, an athletic department needs to be in the top half of the membership hierarchy. For example, Texas A&M, Texas and Oklahoma are all accretive to the SEC. Those universities add revenues to all conference members. On the other hand, expansion with Pitt & Syracuse (or Colorado & Utah, or Maryland & Rutgers) were not financially accretive in a traditional sense. ESPN has an extremely favorable contract with the ACC, and used its leverage to expand its holdings…allowing legacy ACC members to claw-back some of the value given to ESPN.
Excluding SEC members, the only programs that add better than average value to the B1G are probably Notre Dame, Florida State, UNC, Duke, USC, UCLA, Stanford and Washington.
And UVA
Thunder, UVa is not on the practical SEC nor B10 expansion list.
For the better part of the last 15 years their stadium has been 35% empty or more.
They seat 61.5K
In 21 for ND they drew 48,500. The drew 46,400 for VT
In 19 they drew 57,800 for FSU but only 52,300 for VT
In 18 their best crowd was UNC at 43K
In 17 They drew 48.6 for VT and 38 for William and Mary
in 16 They drew 49 for Richmond but just 40 for UNC
in 15 Notre Dame drew 58, but VT drew 53
In 14 UCLA only drew 44K and UNC drew just 45K.
The major recent difference between UNC and UVa is that UNC cut the size of Kenan from 63K to 50K. UVa likely could justify a cut to 48 or less.
UVa has no history of success on the football field. They have won two conference titles in last CENTURY. Unless the B10 or SEC want to subsidize UVa's football like Rutgers or MD, they are not going to add them. It's too big of a heavy lift. VT is far and away the superior football program in the State, the more popular program, and with a better reach outside the State of Va.
UVa football is not weak because UVa sucks or something like that. UVa football is weak for the same reason that Ivy League football is weak, Vandy and NW football are weak - It's simply not going to be a priority. Football was controversial at UVa in the 30's, 50's, and will become controversial again if they raise that profile in Charlottesville. So switch out VT for UVa and you are okay.
All this talk about UVa, walking away, hand in hand with UNC and Duke is predicated on the idea that the SEC or Big 10 actually want them despite their negatives. These are not football first schools. UVa never was. Duke has not been football first since 1962. And UNC stopped most recently when Butch Davis and assistant blew up in their face. Every time UNC goes "all in" on football it lasts 3-5 then there is a scandal or a failure to perform. These aren't schools built for football. Now if they were already members of the SEC or Big 10 they would not be kicked out, they would be treated no worse than Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc., etc. A nice pat on the head and a "bless your heart" regarding football.
Even the "control" that Disney wants is predicated on having something worth controlling.
Here's a football conference for you made up of P-5's:
BC, Indiana, Minn, Purdue, Rutgers, MD, South Carolina, Vandy, MSU, Kansas, Mizzou, UVa, Kentucky, and GT. These are all P-5's - some located in major metros - but how many of their current conferences would add them now for football purposes? How many years would it take for 2-3 rise above the rest and establish anything like dominance and a national reputation? Of these who would you gamble on to establish football if you were the conference desiring to make a football oriented addition?
Keep in mind something JR has repeated often - UNC touched base with the SEC when MD **** on the ACC's PSU expansion plan causing FSU to balk in public. UNC's due diligence is not the same thing as the SEC coming to Grady White Boat in Greenville NC to strike a deal. Remember what happened to Syracuse in the 2003 ACC expansion, you could get the same thing from the SEC from Kentucky, South Carolina, Auburn, and Tennessee. Just how easily do you think UK, SC, Auburn, and Tenn. would acquiesce to Duke and UNC in their basketball conference? They would have to be paid at what point does it become not worth the effort? I'm just saying.
The cheapest thing was already explored - VT and NC State to the SEC. UNC and probably Duke nixed that. Why would that have been the cheapest thing? Because first and foremost VT and NC State are the easiest to move without changing the fundamental nature of the ACC. VT and NC State can provide adequate football without an unsustainable Herculean lift. If it was the cheapest thing in the early 2010's, it's still the cheapest thing now.
(04-15-2022 03:19 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]All this talk about UVa, walking away, hand in hand with UNC and Duke is predicated on the idea that the SEC or Big 10 actually want them despite their negatives. These are not football first schools. UVa never was. Duke has not been football first since 1962. And UNC stopped most recently when Butch Davis and assistant blew up in their face. Every time UNC goes "all in" on football it lasts 3-5 then there is a scandal or a failure to perform. These aren't schools built for football. Now if they were already members of the SEC or Big 10 they would not be kicked out, they would be treated no worse than Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc., etc. A nice pat on the head and a "bless your heart" regarding football.
Even the "control" that Disney wants is predicated on having something worth controlling.
Here's a football conference for you made up of P-5's:
BC, Indiana, Minn, Purdue, Rutgers, MD, South Carolina, Vandy, MSU, Kansas, Mizzou, UVa, Kentucky, and GT. These are all P-5's - some located in major metros - but how many of their current conferences would add them now for football purposes? How many years would it take for 2-3 rise above the rest and establish anything like dominance and a national reputation? Of these who would you gamble on to establish football if you were the conference desiring to make a football oriented addition?
Keep in mind something JR has repeated often - UNC touched base with the SEC when MD **** on the ACC's PSU expansion plan causing FSU to balk in public. UNC's due diligence is not the same thing as the SEC coming to Grady White Boat in Greenville NC to strike a deal. Remember what happened to Syracuse in the 2003 ACC expansion, you could get the same thing from the SEC from Kentucky, South Carolina, Auburn, and Tennessee. Just how easily do you think UK, SC, Auburn, and Tenn. would acquiesce to Duke and UNC in their basketball conference? They would have to be paid at what point does it become not worth the effort? I'm just saying.
The cheapest thing was already explored - VT and NC State to the SEC. UNC and probably Duke nixed that. Why would that have been the cheapest thing? Because first and foremost VT and NC State are the easiest to move without changing the fundamental nature of the ACC. VT and NC State can provide adequate football without an unsustainable Herculean lift. If it was the cheapest thing in the early 2010's, it's still the cheapest thing now.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State would still be suitable to the SEC in a world where the ACC remained intact. And in that world I would agree with your assessment. But that world no longer exists with the disparity in revenue being so great. ESPN wants a league of premier brands. They have it in football. Adding Duke & UNC more so than Virginia takes much of the incentive of a B1G move away. Adding Virginia completes it. Then added to Kentucky they add major content value for basketball, a sport where a breakaway will add ~2.25 x their present value.
In moving to a league of 20 or more adding hoops brands which in a conference which may well play 12 P games easily replace G5's in difficulty. Auburn, Tennessee, & Kentucky would not object. Kentucky would welcome it and the rest are still football first.
It would be the first step to achieve a defense of core identity issue the SEC first discussed in 1990. If taking those 3 halts a B1G advance South it would absolutely be an SEC move, and one which has been planned for 30 years plus. If necessary 4 more would be taken: N.C. State, Virginia Tech, F.S.U. and possibly Georgia Tech.
Wait and see.
ESPN doesn't want to lose it's ad monopoly in the SE. They will be complicit. And frankly that 24 would add tremendous balance for both money sports. 7 ACC schools and Kansas, which ESPN has held special as well.
(04-15-2022 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2022 03:19 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]All this talk about UVa, walking away, hand in hand with UNC and Duke is predicated on the idea that the SEC or Big 10 actually want them despite their negatives. These are not football first schools. UVa never was. Duke has not been football first since 1962. And UNC stopped most recently when Butch Davis and assistant blew up in their face. Every time UNC goes "all in" on football it lasts 3-5 then there is a scandal or a failure to perform. These aren't schools built for football. Now if they were already members of the SEC or Big 10 they would not be kicked out, they would be treated no worse than Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc., etc. A nice pat on the head and a "bless your heart" regarding football.
Even the "control" that Disney wants is predicated on having something worth controlling.
Here's a football conference for you made up of P-5's:
BC, Indiana, Minn, Purdue, Rutgers, MD, South Carolina, Vandy, MSU, Kansas, Mizzou, UVa, Kentucky, and GT. These are all P-5's - some located in major metros - but how many of their current conferences would add them now for football purposes? How many years would it take for 2-3 rise above the rest and establish anything like dominance and a national reputation? Of these who would you gamble on to establish football if you were the conference desiring to make a football oriented addition?
Keep in mind something JR has repeated often - UNC touched base with the SEC when MD **** on the ACC's PSU expansion plan causing FSU to balk in public. UNC's due diligence is not the same thing as the SEC coming to Grady White Boat in Greenville NC to strike a deal. Remember what happened to Syracuse in the 2003 ACC expansion, you could get the same thing from the SEC from Kentucky, South Carolina, Auburn, and Tennessee. Just how easily do you think UK, SC, Auburn, and Tenn. would acquiesce to Duke and UNC in their basketball conference? They would have to be paid at what point does it become not worth the effort? I'm just saying.
The cheapest thing was already explored - VT and NC State to the SEC. UNC and probably Duke nixed that. Why would that have been the cheapest thing? Because first and foremost VT and NC State are the easiest to move without changing the fundamental nature of the ACC. VT and NC State can provide adequate football without an unsustainable Herculean lift. If it was the cheapest thing in the early 2010's, it's still the cheapest thing now.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State would still be suitable to the SEC in a world where the ACC remained intact. And in that world I would agree with your assessment. But that world no longer exists with the disparity in revenue being so great. ESPN wants a league of premier brands. They have it in football. Adding Duke & UNC more so than Virginia takes much of the incentive of a B1G move away. Adding Virginia completes it. Then added to Kentucky they add major content value for basketball, a sport where a breakaway will add ~2.25 x their present value.
In moving to a league of 20 or more adding hoops brands which in a conference which may well play 12 P games easily replace G5's in difficulty. Auburn, Tennessee, & Kentucky would not object. Kentucky would welcome it and the rest are still football first.
It would be the first step to achieve a defense of core identity issue the SEC first discussed in 1990. If taking those 3 halts a B1G advance South it would absolutely be an SEC move, and one which has been planned for 30 years plus. If necessary 4 more would be taken: N.C. State, Virginia Tech, F.S.U. and possibly Georgia Tech.
Wait and see.
ESPN doesn't want to lose it's ad monopoly in the SE. They will be complicit. And frankly that 24 would add tremendous balance for both money sports. 7 ACC schools and Kansas, which ESPN has held special as well.
The moves you suggest would take the SEC to 24 teams. It would also likely stop any further expansion of the B1G, and possibly lead to an 18 team Big 12 by absorbing all the ACC remnants. That would provide a P4 home to everyone in the current P5 except Notre Dame, which would continue to play as as independent.
The SEC could be organized in four 6 team divisions that might look like this:
Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Georgia Tech, Kentucky and Vanderbilt
South Carolina, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke and Virginia
Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Tennessee
Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas and Kansas
A reduction to four power conferences facilitates an 8 team playoff with four conference champions and four at large teams (which provides a path for Notre Dame). With or without a breakaway from the NCAA it would not be necessary to guarantee a G5 champion an autobid to the playoff (they could be invited at large if they are ranked high enough, which would be rare).
EDITED to place the missing Kentucky in the Georgia division
(04-15-2022 08:10 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2022 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2022 03:19 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]All this talk about UVa, walking away, hand in hand with UNC and Duke is predicated on the idea that the SEC or Big 10 actually want them despite their negatives. These are not football first schools. UVa never was. Duke has not been football first since 1962. And UNC stopped most recently when Butch Davis and assistant blew up in their face. Every time UNC goes "all in" on football it lasts 3-5 then there is a scandal or a failure to perform. These aren't schools built for football. Now if they were already members of the SEC or Big 10 they would not be kicked out, they would be treated no worse than Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc., etc. A nice pat on the head and a "bless your heart" regarding football.
Even the "control" that Disney wants is predicated on having something worth controlling.
Here's a football conference for you made up of P-5's:
BC, Indiana, Minn, Purdue, Rutgers, MD, South Carolina, Vandy, MSU, Kansas, Mizzou, UVa, Kentucky, and GT. These are all P-5's - some located in major metros - but how many of their current conferences would add them now for football purposes? How many years would it take for 2-3 rise above the rest and establish anything like dominance and a national reputation? Of these who would you gamble on to establish football if you were the conference desiring to make a football oriented addition?
Keep in mind something JR has repeated often - UNC touched base with the SEC when MD **** on the ACC's PSU expansion plan causing FSU to balk in public. UNC's due diligence is not the same thing as the SEC coming to Grady White Boat in Greenville NC to strike a deal. Remember what happened to Syracuse in the 2003 ACC expansion, you could get the same thing from the SEC from Kentucky, South Carolina, Auburn, and Tennessee. Just how easily do you think UK, SC, Auburn, and Tenn. would acquiesce to Duke and UNC in their basketball conference? They would have to be paid at what point does it become not worth the effort? I'm just saying.
The cheapest thing was already explored - VT and NC State to the SEC. UNC and probably Duke nixed that. Why would that have been the cheapest thing? Because first and foremost VT and NC State are the easiest to move without changing the fundamental nature of the ACC. VT and NC State can provide adequate football without an unsustainable Herculean lift. If it was the cheapest thing in the early 2010's, it's still the cheapest thing now.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State would still be suitable to the SEC in a world where the ACC remained intact. And in that world I would agree with your assessment. But that world no longer exists with the disparity in revenue being so great. ESPN wants a league of premier brands. They have it in football. Adding Duke & UNC more so than Virginia takes much of the incentive of a B1G move away. Adding Virginia completes it. Then added to Kentucky they add major content value for basketball, a sport where a breakaway will add ~2.25 x their present value.
In moving to a league of 20 or more adding hoops brands which in a conference which may well play 12 P games easily replace G5's in difficulty. Auburn, Tennessee, & Kentucky would not object. Kentucky would welcome it and the rest are still football first.
It would be the first step to achieve a defense of core identity issue the SEC first discussed in 1990. If taking those 3 halts a B1G advance South it would absolutely be an SEC move, and one which has been planned for 30 years plus. If necessary 4 more would be taken: N.C. State, Virginia Tech, F.S.U. and possibly Georgia Tech.
Wait and see.
ESPN doesn't want to lose it's ad monopoly in the SE. They will be complicit. And frankly that 24 would add tremendous balance for both money sports. 7 ACC schools and Kansas, which ESPN has held special as well.
The moves you suggest would take the SEC to 24 teams. It would also likely stop any further expansion of the B1G, and possibly lead to an 18 team Big 12 by absorbing all the ACC remnants. That would provide a P4 home to everyone in the current P5 except Notre Dame, which would continue to play as as independent.
The SEC could be organized in four 6 team divisions that might look like this:
Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt
South Carolina, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke and Virginia
Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Tennessee
Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas and Kansas
A reduction to four power conferences facilitates an 8 team playoff with four conference champions and four at large teams (which provides a path for Notre Dame). With or without a breakaway from the NCAA it would not be necessary to guarantee a G5 champion an autobid to the playoff (they could be invited at large if they are ranked high enough, which would be rare).
Where's Elmo (Kentucky)?
I think the SEC would likely organize it more this way:
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Kansas would be out if Ga Tech and N.C. State are in.
Agree with the rest.
What this setup gives this conference is 3 solid division champs in football and gives Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, and both Virginias a solid motivation to make the conference football semis. It also gives the SEC 8 divisional national quality hoops games without locking the rest out of nice runs. And this 24 provides half a dozen weaker football programs, half a dozen annual contenders and about a dozen capable of making solid runs. It's almost an ideal bell curve.