Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #441
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Ultimately though, this all assuming that EVERY B12 has to be taken care of which, is probably not the case.

No one will care if the PAC and B1G takes the prizes from the B12 and KSU/ISU/BU/TCU are left out in the cold.

Neither the ACC or SEC will be obligated to take any of those schools and would not waste the expansion slot on any of them.
02-14-2014 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #442
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-14-2014 05:23 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Ultimately though, this all assuming that EVERY B12 has to be taken care of which, is probably not the case.

No one will care if the PAC and B1G takes the prizes from the B12 and KSU/ISU/BU/TCU are left out in the cold.

Neither the ACC or SEC will be obligated to take any of those schools and would not waste the expansion slot on any of them.

It's all about just getting it done now which does mean at least 8 must be taken. Obviously you can wait until 2023 and start just lining up any you wish to cherry pick.
02-14-2014 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #443
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I think its more likely that the next round doesn't happen till the B12 GOR is in its last couple of years. The conferences want time to digest and adapt to the new playoff landscape.
02-14-2014 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #444
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
If the ACC proposal is adopted, it will be a game changer.
Conferences will be able to have odd numbers of members and flexibility in scheduling. The new norm may be a conference of 15 or 17 instead of 16, 18 or 20.
02-15-2014 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #445
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Exactly XL

Will be huge if that passes

15 would be an interesting number. 3 pods of 5, 3 winners plus one wild card in your tournament. It opens all sorts of interesting possibilities.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2014 09:24 AM by 10thMountain.)
02-15-2014 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #446
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-15-2014 09:17 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly XL

Will be huge if that passes

15 would be an interesting number. 3 pods of 5, 3 winners plus one wild card in your tournament. It opens all sorts of interesting possibilities.

It certainly makes it easier to parse those teams out. It would be interesting to look at at the possibilities then. BTW, I agree that if the Big 10 and PAC took the top schools of the Big 12 the ACC and SEC would have no motivation to work with the rest, but the issue remains that Texas and Kansas are two thirds of the top schools and both are under obligation to ESPN for a 15 million and 7 million a year respectively and the Texas obligation runs until the end of June 2031 so I don't think the likelihood of the PAC and Big 10 taking them is very strong at all. And, FWIW the buyouts on West Virgnia and Oklahoma's T3 rights wouldn't be that difficult to do. So we'll see.
02-15-2014 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #447
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Another possibility exists. All the P5 conferences make a ton of money the next 8-10 years and nobody moves. They might just renew their GoR for another ten years...
02-16-2014 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #448
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-14-2014 06:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think its more likely that the next round doesn't happen till the B12 GOR is in its last couple of years. The conferences want time to digest and adapt to the new playoff landscape.

I believe that the next round will be by the B1G and before their new television contract is signed.
Because of their secretive nature we may never know if it has occured if it is not successful.
IMO the B1G makes a run at Missouri. I think this for several reasons but at this point I would say that one of the biggest reason is ego. Think about it, if the B1G can flip Missouri then they would have taken a school from each of their three biggest competitors (Nebraska from the Big 12, Maryland from the ACC and Missouri from the SEC). What more does an advertiser or cable system need to know?
If the burden of having to find a #16 is lifted, it makes that move even easier for Delany if he only has to target one school.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2014 02:13 PM by XLance.)
02-16-2014 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #449
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-16-2014 02:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-14-2014 06:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think its more likely that the next round doesn't happen till the B12 GOR is in its last couple of years. The conferences want time to digest and adapt to the new playoff landscape.

I believe that the next round will be by the B1G and before their new television contract is signed.
Because of their secretive nature we may never know if it has occured if it is not successful.
IMO the B1G makes a run at Missouri. I think this for several reasons but at this point I would say that one of the biggest reason is ego. Think about it, if the B1G can flip Missouri then they would have taken a school from each of their three biggest competitors (Nebraska from the Big 12, Maryland from the ACC and Missouri from the SEC). What more does an advertiser or cable system need to know?
If the burden of having to find a #16 is lifted, it makes that move even easier for Delany if he only has to target one school.

Nah.... Ego is what will keep Mizzou from even looking their way. You know the old saying....."fool me once, shame on you".....etc. From a true business prospective, there is just no reason for Missouri to pull a silly stunt like this. And lastly.....can you see the really big smile on our faces now?
02-16-2014 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #450
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Even if conferences can decide their championship however they choose, I think we will still see them eventually try to get to 16 just to make scheduling much easier. An odd number over 9, without a round robin, makes for unbalanced and awkward scheduling. Fourteen is also less than optimal as the SEC found out. But then again the B1G made 11 work for a long time.

IMO, I think the benefits are that a conference can take a great candidate immediately instead of waiting for a 2nd good school to join with them. Say OU comes to the SEC and says it wants to join, but Texas and Kansas are not interested. All the other schools knocking on the SEC door are deemed as flawed adds. This rule change would allow you to add OU now, and wait to add a 16th school when another good candidate is available instead of having to pass until you found a 2nd quality school to go with OU. This could actually make movement much easier, if GoR do not stand in the way, going forward if it passes.
02-16-2014 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #451
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-16-2014 11:08 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Even if conferences can decide their championship however they choose, I think we will still see them eventually try to get to 16 just to make scheduling much easier. An odd number over 9, without a round robin, makes for unbalanced and awkward scheduling. Fourteen is also less than optimal as the SEC found out. But then again the B1G made 11 work for a long time.

IMO, I think the benefits are that a conference can take a great candidate immediately instead of waiting for a 2nd good school to join with them. Say OU comes to the SEC and says it wants to join, but Texas and Kansas are not interested. All the other schools knocking on the SEC door are deemed as flawed adds. This rule change would allow you to add OU now, and wait to add a 16th school when another good candidate is available instead of having to pass until you found a 2nd quality school to go with OU. This could actually make movement much easier, if GoR do not stand in the way, going forward if it passes.

Unfortunately the GOR's do stand in the way, at least until 2024-5 for the Big 12. I think it is a game of place 8 or wait. My favorite solution involves the Big 10, SEC and ACC. The Big 10 takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Connecticut to move to 18. The SEC takes Kansas State and Oklahoma State in addition to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get to 18. The ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to get 18 plus 2 hybrids. Rice and Tulane help them continue their academic excellence and serve as a bridge to the Florida Schools. West Virginia reconnects the ACC footprint. T.C.U. is out. UConn is in. The SEC adds two western states and gets into the Virginia and North Carolina adding 4 decent teams building the SEC in the middle and not at the top or bottom. The ACC comes out way ahead in markets and with a network. Iowa State finds a home at home while the Big 10 lands a two basketball national brands and one football national brand. I call that a win win win. If T.C.U. is a must then replace either Rice or Tulane with them.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
East: Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers.

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia (Notre Dame)
South: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Rice, Texas Tech, Tulane (Texas)
or sub T.C.U. for Rice or Tulane.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2014 11:44 PM by JRsec.)
02-16-2014 11:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IR4CU Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 139
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Clemson
Location:
Post: #452
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-16-2014 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Unfortunately the GOR's do stand in the way, at least until 2024-5 for the Big 12. I think it is a game of place 8 or wait. My favorite solution involves the Big 10, SEC and ACC. The Big 10 takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Connecticut to move to 18. The SEC takes Kansas State and Oklahoma State in addition to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get to 18. The ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to get 18 plus 2 hybrids. Rice and Tulane help them continue their academic excellence and serve as a bridge to the Florida Schools. West Virginia reconnects the ACC footprint. T.C.U. is out. UConn is in. The SEC adds two western states and gets into the Virginia and North Carolina adding 4 decent teams building the SEC in the middle and not at the top or bottom. The ACC comes out way ahead in markets and with a network. Iowa State finds a home at home while the Big 10 lands a two basketball national brands and one football national brand. I call that a win win win. If T.C.U. is a must then replace either Rice or Tulane with them.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
East: Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers.

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia (Notre Dame)
South: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Rice, Texas Tech, Tulane (Texas)
or sub T.C.U. for Rice or Tulane.

From a conference perspective, I do not know if I would call this a win win for the ACC - only one true big time football school (Texas) is added and then only as a "partial", three schools that bump the football pedigree needle a little bit (WVU, Baylor, and TT) and three schools that fit in well with the current ACC culture and make-up but don't help much from a football perspective (Cincy, Tulane, Rice). We also lose one of our football oriented programs in Va Tech. I think everyone agrees the ACC needs help first and foremost in the area of football - not markets, academics, or basketball.

From a Clemson football perspective, this is a big time lose lose - 3 snoozers (UVA, WF, & Duke) and two luke warms (GaTech & UNC) in our pod! What if Auburn was put into a pod with Miss, Miss State, Vandy, and UK - would that excite the Auburn fan base? Probably not but even that would be better from a football perspective then the suggested grouping for Clemson. Of course, if the scheduling is done on some basis other then "pods", I could live with the make-up of the ACC provided we could play the FSU's, Miami's, ND's, and UT's at least on an even frequency (or hopefully more often) then we would have to play Duke, WF, or UVA. Also, I would much prefer TCU and UCon to Rice and Tulane. By the way, I do not have a grudge against the ACC - over the years, the ACC has been very good for Clemson and I think it is likely that the ACC will be Clemson's home for as long as we play football. However, from a football fans perspective, I certainly would prefer to be with like minded schools such as Auburn, USC, and UGA (or FSU, Va Tech, UT) - our record probably would not be as good but the football would certainly be a lot more exciting.
02-17-2014 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #453
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-17-2014 09:45 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  
(02-16-2014 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Unfortunately the GOR's do stand in the way, at least until 2024-5 for the Big 12. I think it is a game of place 8 or wait. My favorite solution involves the Big 10, SEC and ACC. The Big 10 takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Connecticut to move to 18. The SEC takes Kansas State and Oklahoma State in addition to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get to 18. The ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to get 18 plus 2 hybrids. Rice and Tulane help them continue their academic excellence and serve as a bridge to the Florida Schools. West Virginia reconnects the ACC footprint. T.C.U. is out. UConn is in. The SEC adds two western states and gets into the Virginia and North Carolina adding 4 decent teams building the SEC in the middle and not at the top or bottom. The ACC comes out way ahead in markets and with a network. Iowa State finds a home at home while the Big 10 lands a two basketball national brands and one football national brand. I call that a win win win. If T.C.U. is a must then replace either Rice or Tulane with them.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
East: Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers.

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia (Notre Dame)
South: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Rice, Texas Tech, Tulane (Texas)
or sub T.C.U. for Rice or Tulane.

From a conference perspective, I do not know if I would call this a win win for the ACC - only one true big time football school (Texas) is added and then only as a "partial", three schools that bump the football pedigree needle a little bit (WVU, Baylor, and TT) and three schools that fit in well with the current ACC culture and make-up but don't help much from a football perspective (Cincy, Tulane, Rice). We also lose one of our football oriented programs in Va Tech. I think everyone agrees the ACC needs help first and foremost in the area of football - not markets, academics, or basketball.

From a Clemson football perspective, this is a big time lose lose - 3 snoozers (UVA, WF, & Duke) and two luke warms (GaTech & UNC) in our pod! What if Auburn was put into a pod with Miss, Miss State, Vandy, and UK - would that excite the Auburn fan base? Probably not but even that would be better from a football perspective then the suggested grouping for Clemson. Of course, if the scheduling is done on some basis other then "pods", I could live with the make-up of the ACC provided we could play the FSU's, Miami's, ND's, and UT's at least on an even frequency (or hopefully more often) then we would have to play Duke, WF, or UVA. Also, I would much prefer TCU and UCon to Rice and Tulane. By the way, I do not have a grudge against the ACC - over the years, the ACC has been very good for Clemson and I think it is likely that the ACC will be Clemson's home for as long as we play football. However, from a football fans perspective, I certainly would prefer to be with like minded schools such as Auburn, USC, and UGA (or FSU, Va Tech, UT) - our record probably would not be as good but the football would certainly be a lot more exciting.
I think there are many guys on this board that would have been happy going to 16 with Clemson and Florida State. ESPN wouldn't pay for it.

I agree with your analysis too. The only reason that Texas makes it worthwhile is because without the Horns directly the Texas teams deliver all 26 million and the various smaller markets within Texas totally. New Orleans is a nice niche market, puts you in the Sugar Bowl conversation and eliminating the Big 12 gives you guys the contract to play the SEC in the Sugar Bowl in all likelihood. Cincinnati delivers more than just their city and all combined you're probably looking at 36 or 37 million more viewers. Texas not as a full member still adds tremendous cache and provides that ready made network the ACC has need of. Not optimal but all in all still a good plus. Also whether Virginia Tech really delivers a consistent football product of quality is another question altogether, especially with them now suffering some Bowden like problems with Beamer. They never really had a good football program before Beamer and might well not after him. Time will tell on that.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2014 10:09 PM by JRsec.)
02-17-2014 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #454
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Quote:SEC:
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Like it!

Rivalry Week Bonanza:

Arkansas vs Oklahoma State (these 2 are basically straight down hw 412 from each other, less than 3 hours)
Kansas vs Mizzou
A&M vs LSU
Alabama vs Auburn
Florida vs Georgia
North Carolina State vs South Carolina
Vandy vs Kentucky
MSU vs Ole Miss
Tennessee vs Virginia Tech
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2014 03:04 PM by 10thMountain.)
02-18-2014 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #455
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-17-2014 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 09:45 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  
(02-16-2014 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Unfortunately the GOR's do stand in the way, at least until 2024-5 for the Big 12. I think it is a game of place 8 or wait. My favorite solution involves the Big 10, SEC and ACC. The Big 10 takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Connecticut to move to 18. The SEC takes Kansas State and Oklahoma State in addition to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get to 18. The ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to get 18 plus 2 hybrids. Rice and Tulane help them continue their academic excellence and serve as a bridge to the Florida Schools. West Virginia reconnects the ACC footprint. T.C.U. is out. UConn is in. The SEC adds two western states and gets into the Virginia and North Carolina adding 4 decent teams building the SEC in the middle and not at the top or bottom. The ACC comes out way ahead in markets and with a network. Iowa State finds a home at home while the Big 10 lands a two basketball national brands and one football national brand. I call that a win win win. If T.C.U. is a must then replace either Rice or Tulane with them.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
East: Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers.

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia (Notre Dame)
South: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Rice, Texas Tech, Tulane (Texas)
or sub T.C.U. for Rice or Tulane.

From a conference perspective, I do not know if I would call this a win win for the ACC - only one true big time football school (Texas) is added and then only as a "partial", three schools that bump the football pedigree needle a little bit (WVU, Baylor, and TT) and three schools that fit in well with the current ACC culture and make-up but don't help much from a football perspective (Cincy, Tulane, Rice). We also lose one of our football oriented programs in Va Tech. I think everyone agrees the ACC needs help first and foremost in the area of football - not markets, academics, or basketball.

From a Clemson football perspective, this is a big time lose lose - 3 snoozers (UVA, WF, & Duke) and two luke warms (GaTech & UNC) in our pod! What if Auburn was put into a pod with Miss, Miss State, Vandy, and UK - would that excite the Auburn fan base? Probably not but even that would be better from a football perspective then the suggested grouping for Clemson. Of course, if the scheduling is done on some basis other then "pods", I could live with the make-up of the ACC provided we could play the FSU's, Miami's, ND's, and UT's at least on an even frequency (or hopefully more often) then we would have to play Duke, WF, or UVA. Also, I would much prefer TCU and UCon to Rice and Tulane. By the way, I do not have a grudge against the ACC - over the years, the ACC has been very good for Clemson and I think it is likely that the ACC will be Clemson's home for as long as we play football. However, from a football fans perspective, I certainly would prefer to be with like minded schools such as Auburn, USC, and UGA (or FSU, Va Tech, UT) - our record probably would not be as good but the football would certainly be a lot more exciting.
I think there are many guys on this board that would have been happy going to 16 with Clemson and Florida State. ESPN wouldn't pay for it.

I agree with your analysis too. The only reason that Texas makes it worthwhile is because without the Horns directly the Texas teams deliver all 26 million and the various smaller markets within Texas totally. New Orleans is a nice niche market, puts you in the Sugar Bowl conversation and eliminating the Big 12 gives you guys the contract to play the SEC in the Sugar Bowl in all likelihood. Cincinnati delivers more than just their city and all combined you're probably looking at 36 or 37 million more viewers. Texas not as a full member still adds tremendous cache and provides that ready made network the ACC has need of. Not optimal but all in all still a good plus. Also whether Virginia Tech really delivers a consistent football product of quality is another question altogether, especially with them now suffering some Bowden like problems with Beamer. They never really had a good football program before Beamer and might well not after him. Time will tell on that.

The assumption that Florida State or Clemson would even want to move to the SEC is NC State delusional. ESPN wouldn't pay for it? Do you have John Skipper on speed dial?
02-19-2014 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #456
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-19-2014 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 09:45 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  
(02-16-2014 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Unfortunately the GOR's do stand in the way, at least until 2024-5 for the Big 12. I think it is a game of place 8 or wait. My favorite solution involves the Big 10, SEC and ACC. The Big 10 takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Connecticut to move to 18. The SEC takes Kansas State and Oklahoma State in addition to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get to 18. The ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to get 18 plus 2 hybrids. Rice and Tulane help them continue their academic excellence and serve as a bridge to the Florida Schools. West Virginia reconnects the ACC footprint. T.C.U. is out. UConn is in. The SEC adds two western states and gets into the Virginia and North Carolina adding 4 decent teams building the SEC in the middle and not at the top or bottom. The ACC comes out way ahead in markets and with a network. Iowa State finds a home at home while the Big 10 lands a two basketball national brands and one football national brand. I call that a win win win. If T.C.U. is a must then replace either Rice or Tulane with them.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
East: Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers.

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia (Notre Dame)
South: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Rice, Texas Tech, Tulane (Texas)
or sub T.C.U. for Rice or Tulane.

From a conference perspective, I do not know if I would call this a win win for the ACC - only one true big time football school (Texas) is added and then only as a "partial", three schools that bump the football pedigree needle a little bit (WVU, Baylor, and TT) and three schools that fit in well with the current ACC culture and make-up but don't help much from a football perspective (Cincy, Tulane, Rice). We also lose one of our football oriented programs in Va Tech. I think everyone agrees the ACC needs help first and foremost in the area of football - not markets, academics, or basketball.

From a Clemson football perspective, this is a big time lose lose - 3 snoozers (UVA, WF, & Duke) and two luke warms (GaTech & UNC) in our pod! What if Auburn was put into a pod with Miss, Miss State, Vandy, and UK - would that excite the Auburn fan base? Probably not but even that would be better from a football perspective then the suggested grouping for Clemson. Of course, if the scheduling is done on some basis other then "pods", I could live with the make-up of the ACC provided we could play the FSU's, Miami's, ND's, and UT's at least on an even frequency (or hopefully more often) then we would have to play Duke, WF, or UVA. Also, I would much prefer TCU and UCon to Rice and Tulane. By the way, I do not have a grudge against the ACC - over the years, the ACC has been very good for Clemson and I think it is likely that the ACC will be Clemson's home for as long as we play football. However, from a football fans perspective, I certainly would prefer to be with like minded schools such as Auburn, USC, and UGA (or FSU, Va Tech, UT) - our record probably would not be as good but the football would certainly be a lot more exciting.
I think there are many guys on this board that would have been happy going to 16 with Clemson and Florida State. ESPN wouldn't pay for it.

I agree with your analysis too. The only reason that Texas makes it worthwhile is because without the Horns directly the Texas teams deliver all 26 million and the various smaller markets within Texas totally. New Orleans is a nice niche market, puts you in the Sugar Bowl conversation and eliminating the Big 12 gives you guys the contract to play the SEC in the Sugar Bowl in all likelihood. Cincinnati delivers more than just their city and all combined you're probably looking at 36 or 37 million more viewers. Texas not as a full member still adds tremendous cache and provides that ready made network the ACC has need of. Not optimal but all in all still a good plus. Also whether Virginia Tech really delivers a consistent football product of quality is another question altogether, especially with them now suffering some Bowden like problems with Beamer. They never really had a good football program before Beamer and might well not after him. Time will tell on that.

The assumption that Florida State or Clemson would even want to move to the SEC is NC State delusional. ESPN wouldn't pay for it? Do you have John Skipper on speed dial?

There were inquiries two years ago from those schools both of which formed realignment committees to assess their prospects. So N.C. State delusional? Why would ESPN pay more for less of two products they own outright? Couple that with the renegotiation clause for the SEC which stipulated two new markets as the trigger and I think it's pretty clear where we were supposed to look. Sometimes delusion is refusing to even admit the truth of recent history. The real issue here is an antiquated conference structure that restricts regional play and associations for athletics based upon mutual interests while constraining associations between schools to academics only as if there is much difference between most. After the UNC academic fraud, like all other elitists aspects of our society it just proves that those committing white collar crime see themselves as somehow being morally superior to the food court shoplifter who just needs to eat. One is excusable to a certain degree and it's not the one who chooses immoral action that is not predicated upon the need to survive as much as the total expression of immorality which is choosing it when you don't have to. It's really hypocrisy at the highest level.
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2014 09:33 AM by JRsec.)
02-19-2014 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #457
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-19-2014 09:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-19-2014 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 09:45 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  
(02-16-2014 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Unfortunately the GOR's do stand in the way, at least until 2024-5 for the Big 12. I think it is a game of place 8 or wait. My favorite solution involves the Big 10, SEC and ACC. The Big 10 takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Connecticut to move to 18. The SEC takes Kansas State and Oklahoma State in addition to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get to 18. The ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, Cincinnati, and West Virginia to get 18 plus 2 hybrids. Rice and Tulane help them continue their academic excellence and serve as a bridge to the Florida Schools. West Virginia reconnects the ACC footprint. T.C.U. is out. UConn is in. The SEC adds two western states and gets into the Virginia and North Carolina adding 4 decent teams building the SEC in the middle and not at the top or bottom. The ACC comes out way ahead in markets and with a network. Iowa State finds a home at home while the Big 10 lands a two basketball national brands and one football national brand. I call that a win win win. If T.C.U. is a must then replace either Rice or Tulane with them.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
East: Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers.

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia (Notre Dame)
South: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia
West: Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Rice, Texas Tech, Tulane (Texas)
or sub T.C.U. for Rice or Tulane.

From a conference perspective, I do not know if I would call this a win win for the ACC - only one true big time football school (Texas) is added and then only as a "partial", three schools that bump the football pedigree needle a little bit (WVU, Baylor, and TT) and three schools that fit in well with the current ACC culture and make-up but don't help much from a football perspective (Cincy, Tulane, Rice). We also lose one of our football oriented programs in Va Tech. I think everyone agrees the ACC needs help first and foremost in the area of football - not markets, academics, or basketball.

From a Clemson football perspective, this is a big time lose lose - 3 snoozers (UVA, WF, & Duke) and two luke warms (GaTech & UNC) in our pod! What if Auburn was put into a pod with Miss, Miss State, Vandy, and UK - would that excite the Auburn fan base? Probably not but even that would be better from a football perspective then the suggested grouping for Clemson. Of course, if the scheduling is done on some basis other then "pods", I could live with the make-up of the ACC provided we could play the FSU's, Miami's, ND's, and UT's at least on an even frequency (or hopefully more often) then we would have to play Duke, WF, or UVA. Also, I would much prefer TCU and UCon to Rice and Tulane. By the way, I do not have a grudge against the ACC - over the years, the ACC has been very good for Clemson and I think it is likely that the ACC will be Clemson's home for as long as we play football. However, from a football fans perspective, I certainly would prefer to be with like minded schools such as Auburn, USC, and UGA (or FSU, Va Tech, UT) - our record probably would not be as good but the football would certainly be a lot more exciting.
I think there are many guys on this board that would have been happy going to 16 with Clemson and Florida State. ESPN wouldn't pay for it.

I agree with your analysis too. The only reason that Texas makes it worthwhile is because without the Horns directly the Texas teams deliver all 26 million and the various smaller markets within Texas totally. New Orleans is a nice niche market, puts you in the Sugar Bowl conversation and eliminating the Big 12 gives you guys the contract to play the SEC in the Sugar Bowl in all likelihood. Cincinnati delivers more than just their city and all combined you're probably looking at 36 or 37 million more viewers. Texas not as a full member still adds tremendous cache and provides that ready made network the ACC has need of. Not optimal but all in all still a good plus. Also whether Virginia Tech really delivers a consistent football product of quality is another question altogether, especially with them now suffering some Bowden like problems with Beamer. They never really had a good football program before Beamer and might well not after him. Time will tell on that.

The assumption that Florida State or Clemson would even want to move to the SEC is NC State delusional. ESPN wouldn't pay for it? Do you have John Skipper on speed dial?

There were inquiries two years ago from those schools both of which formed realignment committees to assess their prospects. So N.C. State delusional? Why would ESPN pay more for less of two products they own outright? Couple that with the renegotiation clause for the SEC which stipulated two new markets as the trigger and I think it's pretty clear where we were supposed to look. Sometimes delusion is refusing to even admit the truth of recent history. The real issue here is an antiquated conference structure that restricts regional play and associations for athletics based upon mutual interests while constraining associations between schools to academics only as if there is much difference between most. After the UNC academic fraud, like all other elitists aspects of our society it just proves that those committing white collar crime see themselves as somehow being morally superior to the food court shoplifter who just needs to eat. One is excusable to a certain degree and it's not the one who chooses immoral action that is not predicated upon the need to survive as much as the total expression of immorality which is choosing it when you don't have to. It's really hypocrisy at the highest level.

04-bs
02-19-2014 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #458
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-19-2014 12:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-19-2014 09:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-19-2014 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2014 09:45 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  From a conference perspective, I do not know if I would call this a win win for the ACC - only one true big time football school (Texas) is added and then only as a "partial", three schools that bump the football pedigree needle a little bit (WVU, Baylor, and TT) and three schools that fit in well with the current ACC culture and make-up but don't help much from a football perspective (Cincy, Tulane, Rice). We also lose one of our football oriented programs in Va Tech. I think everyone agrees the ACC needs help first and foremost in the area of football - not markets, academics, or basketball.

From a Clemson football perspective, this is a big time lose lose - 3 snoozers (UVA, WF, & Duke) and two luke warms (GaTech & UNC) in our pod! What if Auburn was put into a pod with Miss, Miss State, Vandy, and UK - would that excite the Auburn fan base? Probably not but even that would be better from a football perspective then the suggested grouping for Clemson. Of course, if the scheduling is done on some basis other then "pods", I could live with the make-up of the ACC provided we could play the FSU's, Miami's, ND's, and UT's at least on an even frequency (or hopefully more often) then we would have to play Duke, WF, or UVA. Also, I would much prefer TCU and UCon to Rice and Tulane. By the way, I do not have a grudge against the ACC - over the years, the ACC has been very good for Clemson and I think it is likely that the ACC will be Clemson's home for as long as we play football. However, from a football fans perspective, I certainly would prefer to be with like minded schools such as Auburn, USC, and UGA (or FSU, Va Tech, UT) - our record probably would not be as good but the football would certainly be a lot more exciting.
I think there are many guys on this board that would have been happy going to 16 with Clemson and Florida State. ESPN wouldn't pay for it.

I agree with your analysis too. The only reason that Texas makes it worthwhile is because without the Horns directly the Texas teams deliver all 26 million and the various smaller markets within Texas totally. New Orleans is a nice niche market, puts you in the Sugar Bowl conversation and eliminating the Big 12 gives you guys the contract to play the SEC in the Sugar Bowl in all likelihood. Cincinnati delivers more than just their city and all combined you're probably looking at 36 or 37 million more viewers. Texas not as a full member still adds tremendous cache and provides that ready made network the ACC has need of. Not optimal but all in all still a good plus. Also whether Virginia Tech really delivers a consistent football product of quality is another question altogether, especially with them now suffering some Bowden like problems with Beamer. They never really had a good football program before Beamer and might well not after him. Time will tell on that.

The assumption that Florida State or Clemson would even want to move to the SEC is NC State delusional. ESPN wouldn't pay for it? Do you have John Skipper on speed dial?

There were inquiries two years ago from those schools both of which formed realignment committees to assess their prospects. So N.C. State delusional? Why would ESPN pay more for less of two products they own outright? Couple that with the renegotiation clause for the SEC which stipulated two new markets as the trigger and I think it's pretty clear where we were supposed to look. Sometimes delusion is refusing to even admit the truth of recent history. The real issue here is an antiquated conference structure that restricts regional play and associations for athletics based upon mutual interests while constraining associations between schools to academics only as if there is much difference between most. After the UNC academic fraud, like all other elitists aspects of our society it just proves that those committing white collar crime see themselves as somehow being morally superior to the food court shoplifter who just needs to eat. One is excusable to a certain degree and it's not the one who chooses immoral action that is not predicated upon the need to survive as much as the total expression of immorality which is choosing it when you don't have to. It's really hypocrisy at the highest level.

04-bs

If your are calling B.S. then where is your proof? The committees formed were a matter of record at Clemson as the University posted it on their cite. And their's was in response to one formed at F.S.U. Unless you are calling B.S. on the moral statement I made about the academic fraud at the University of North Carolina in which case the penalty should not necessarily have to come from the NCAA as much as from the accreditation services.
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2014 01:30 PM by JRsec.)
02-19-2014 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #459
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
XLance, you do realize that in all likelihood no conference ever goes beyond 20 schools. At 24 you lose all chance to play outside competition during the regular season as likely you would have to play 11 conference games.

If the ACC grows by 4 full members it becomes numerically impractical for it to ever be raided out of existences. It would take the placing of 14 schools to dissolve the conference. And the only conferences that might be interested in ACC schools would both likely have 18 schools already. So I propose that 18 is the number of schools required to cement long term security for the ACC.

Taking 4 from the Big 12 then becomes a means to two ends: security and more income. Both the SEC and ACC would gain 31.25 million in playoff money by eliminating the Big 12. That number is in addition to market increase and content value. That's 1.74 million more per school for each of the 18 teams that would be in our conferences without the markets and content factored in.

Swofford and Slive should be on the phone with ESPN to make this happen. You guys need the boost in football profile and you need the LHN to become a delivery system for the ACC.

If you took Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Texas Tech the SEC could counter with Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor and West Virginia/or Iowa State. The awkwardness of the arrangement would require that Florida State and Miami move to the Western division, but F.S.U. fans would probably like that just fine. Clemson fans not so much.

Or you could take 6 Big 12 properties and give to ACC properties to the SEC along with our two selections from the Big 12.

Another reason the ACC should push for this kind of movement is because the elimination of the Big 12 adds to the Sugar Bowl revenue to the ACC ledger. That's another 2.2 million annually for each of the 18 ACC members.

Ideally something like this would be best:
ACC:
Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

That's a 4 million bump per year for each school involved for either conference. Then the additional market draw for cable networks, plus content value.

Stay stubborn if you must, but the total package easily equals the Big 10's money and possibly surpasses it.

Out would be West Virginia and T.C.U.. The Big 12 is dissolved. ESPN scoops the coup. And in a few years both conferences per team payouts exceed 40 million. Honestly F.S.U. has never fit your bill and have always been a griper. Virginia Tech still keeps their Virginia game and gains games with Kentucky and Tennessee which are close enough neighbors. Texas upgrades it's neighborhood by moving away from T.C.U. and W.V.U.. They keep Texas Tech and Oklahoma and can now schedule Aggie as a cross conference rival. The Sooners keep Bedlam as cross conference play. Kansas keeps the Wildacats as cross conference play. More importantly Texas has all of its buddies in its own division. They know their conference is limited for growth potential and the yearn for better games. This allows them to keep their core important games, gives them two Texas schools to play in state (possibly Aggie in a crossover), keeps Oklahoma and Kansas State, and gives them access to ACC academics.

The ACC adds nearly 34 million cable viewers to its footprint and gives up none. The SEC adds 12 million cable viewers and picks up content with F.S.U. and improves hoops with Kansas. Now the deal would still work better for the SEC with N.C. State instead of F.S.U. but if U.N.C. would be more comfortable with the other arrangement I think the SEC would go for it. But the money would be just too good for everyone to be ignored.

We can go tit for tat about our futures, but the SEC is secure. The ACC is more secure than it was, but still isn't totally safe. Monetary disparity is your Achilles heel and this solves it.
03-08-2014 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #460
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I think 24 works too. You play the 5 other schools in your pod and 1 school in each of the other 3 pods for 8 conference games. If you do a rivalry game there is 9. Play the schools in the other pods every 6 years. Not ideal, but workable. In the 14 team SEC don't some of the schools only play like once every seven years? Not much different.

Or just say screw it and set it up like 2 different conferences of 12-16 schools. Schools from each side only play each other in the conference playoff or out of conference. This is something the B12 and ACC could do.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2014 12:37 AM by jhawkmvp.)
03-09-2014 12:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


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