(04-22-2023 07:49 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  You next identify a potential 40% payout differential between conferences. Projections of ACC revenues are based on new TV deals against the old ACC estimates without the benefits of the look-ins and the growth of the ACCN. Both the BTN and the SECN are at or near the mature stage (both can grow but mostly through new markets - The BTN via LA, the SECN via OK and minimally via TX as TAMU already carries TX; other growth can occur via significant population growth within the respective networks' footprints - which benefits both the ACCN and SECN and is stagnant for the BTN). The ACCN is in the growth stage and should hit the mature stage before the GOR expires (assuming no new markets are assimilated to the conference).

ACC Network is fully distributed nationally, agreements have been made with all of the major cable providers. But it is recent enough that we don't have the Form 990s to give us clues as to how much the mature ACC Network is paying the ACC schools.

https://theacc.com/news/2021/11/30/gener...ution.aspx

Quote:A Hoops is significantly underpaid because the rumor from most sports nuts is that football drives the bus. However, the TV ratings do not support the argument, nor do recent conference deals.

I'm not sure what deals you're referring to. Football-only memberships have paid about 75% of a full share. Notre Dame seems to get 25% of an ACC revenue share.

The Big East gets about 20, 25% of what the ACC, Big 12 and PAC-12 were getting.

The old hybrid Big East was an outlier, a premier basketball league but a second-tier football league. But that was handled with separate football and basketball contracts.

Quote:Side bar:
Power conferences average 6-7 home games/year, or 7 games X 3 hours of advertising opportunity, or 18-21 hours in the regular season. Home games in hoops average 18-20 games, or 36-40 hours of advertising opportunity. The standard argument is that football is 75%of the TV deal, hoops 25% of the deal. Then there are the "exceptions", "outliers", "excuses", "howevers", "buts", "yets", etc. None of which come from real decision makers. I will stand corrected if someone provides valid first hand documented statements from network, conference, or even AD's who were/are actively involved in the negotiations to support such claims.

Quote:Back to analysis: For the "common knowledge" to be true, football TV ratings must be 6X better than hoops ratings (hint: on average they aren't) because football has half the exposure opportunity and allegedly is 3X the value of hoops outright. In truth, the ratings averages are roughly equal.

That's just not true? I mean, it might be true if you take the average of Nielsen rated games, because then you're not including a lot of near-zero-rated basketball games in the average

Quote:While the SECN's original deal may have been on the scale of 75%/25% because SEC hoops were garbage for the most part when the SECN started, that is no longer true nor would the split apply to any other P5 conference as the remaining four had respectable to elite hoops top to bottom (I would argue the SEC has joined them, now). Conclusion: The "football drives the bus" argument has been used to keep TV deals down,

It didn't work. TV deals have not been kept down, at all. At least not until the last few months as the PAC has circled the drain.

Quote:but conferences have been learning more about the revenues, there is much more money out there for the conferences and the schools.

For the top brands, that can deliver top-performing audiences, yes. For the middling schools, who can't muster OTA-level audiences, they can take what ESPN and/or Fox/FS1 offer, or they can starve in the dark.

Quote:See what the Big12 received WITHOUT it's two top draws! The Big 12 has less draw and actual ratings than the ACC, plus less growth potential.

Finally, as noted, ESPN owns the ACCN and SECN. Fox wants more of an imprint in the northeast market, mid-Atlantic and a portion of the southeast.

What closely what Fox actually does. They own their TV stations in the NFC markets. that's not an accident, that's a deliberate strategy. They own-and-operate the Fox stations in 14 of the 16 NFC cities (including Milwaukee, excluding New Orleans and Charlotte) plus Houston, Austin and Orlando.

Fox has NFC football. That's all the imprint they need. You could say that the Big 12's footprint lines up well with the Fox O&O stations -- Orlando, DFW, Houston, Austin. But the PAC footprint lines up just as well -- San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, plus some residual Los Angeles interest.

People should stop thinking of Fox as a major chess-playing manipulator at this point. They are no longer a heavyweight. Their market cap is $15B. The company is Fox News and NFC football, the rest is break-even window dressing.

Quote:In the northeast (with more than 25% of the U.S. population) college hoops is king over college football.

I'm not sure whether this is still true. College football has become a national entertainment product. There isn't a fanatical fandom in the northeast, but there's a population who will crack open a beer and watch some football after the kids are home from practice and the lawn is mowed etc. They're as likely to watch Michigan as Ole Miss though, they're VERY casual fans.

(I agree that ESPN isn't going to nuke the ACC, so I'm deleting a whole bunch of that. The marginal advertising revenue produced from replacing a top 10 FSU/Clemson vs ACC opponent game with a 5th or 6th SEC mega-matchup on any given Saturday doesn't replace the ACC Network revenue lost.)

Quote:I agree that Fox knows what they are doing. They will do what they can to entice defectors. ESPN knows this. ACC schools know this.

Fox is not the puppet master, they don't have the stroke. The Big Ten is driving the bus. Do you think Fox wanted to bring the Los Angeles schools into the Big Ten, and then have them play their Big Ten games on NBC and CBS because it's 9 in the morning in LA? I very much doubt that USC and UCLA don't have protections in the TV contract against Big Noon games, and I very much doubt that NBC and CBS are paying the kind of money they're paying to go head-to-head with a Big Ten game on Fox.

Quote: The real facts are that for 2020-2021 (2021 fiscal year) payouts, the ACC was 3rd, and just under $40MM, the B1G was 2nd at $49.6MM.

On the one hand, that's before the ACC Network money fully kicks in. (2021-22 year, maybe 2022-23). But it's also before the Big Ten and SEC money skyrockets.

(04-22-2023 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  On the gossip circle, Swaim is now tweeting that Wilner and Canzano are acknowledging that losing some more PAC members is a possibility.

Will tweets from his money perch about the P2 plucking more schools put egg on his face?

(04-23-2023 09:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2023 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-22-2023 12:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  The combination of Kansas and Colorado would be another "Missouri moment". It would force the B1G to leap frog on a permanent basis from Nebraska to the west coast.
With the Big 12 going to 16 ( the Arizona schools, SDSU and Utah plus Memphis), it leaves the B1G only Stanford and Cal if they were to choose to expand further, but a huge gap of space and no real "fit" other than AAU status.

I think ESPN would choose to leave Notre Dame as they are, knowing that the Mouse will get the lions share of ND attention. Plus the one game per year the Irish have lined up with the SEC will give both another "big time" annual exposure.

Kansas was hoped to be placed in the ACC by ESPN in 2011 where they would bookend the rivalry weekend with the SEC and Missouri. When that didn't happen I think the Jayhawks have remained on the ESPN backburner and will be united again with Missouri. In other words they were always intended to be part of the Mouse's family. Colorado is the new Missouri and for the same reasons. It like Missouri is a state of 6 million. Like Missouri it is essentially the flagship with very little encumbrance from Colorado State. Like Missouri it is a huge blocking move should it be made, and like Missouri, the Big 10 was eyeing bigger prizes at the time. It also really blocks off the new SW in the SEC. Add the MTZ for niche broadcast purposes and it could pay.

So while SEC geriatrics go to Branson younger SEC fans could go skiing, or just go for the natural beauty of it. Really young SEC fans can still puke on the beaches at Panama City.

Of course Kansas could still be placed in the ACC. Maybe alongside of Missouri, which would remove that square peg out of the SEC's round hole.
That pair would be contiguous with Louisville's Kentucky. The SEC could still add Colorado to return to 16. Ridiculous? Probably.

The question to answer is how can the SEC have access to Kansas? The Big 12 GOR would keep Kansas unavailable until 2031. And since the Big 12 is funded by both ESPN and FOX, and developed jointly (with FOX keeping 60% of the basketball content), why would FOX allow Kansas to leave especially to the SEC?
As good as your contingencies look on paper, they may not be practical to implement.
For that matter how much will it cost ESPN/SEC to free up Florida State and Clemson before 2036?

Expanding with the combination of Kansas and TCU would have been a forward looking move 18 months ago for the ACC. Maybe, the opportunity represents itself in six years. A basketball blue blood plus a strong football brand with national aspirations in the state of Texas.

It would help if the ACC and SEC had a partnership to help each other compete in non-revenue sports. For example, the SEC would let KU and TCU compete as conference member in some non-revenue sports. The ACC would reciprocate in soccer (e.g., USC and UK), lacrosse (e.g., UF) or whatever other non-revenue sport made sense.

(04-23-2023 11:23 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 09:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2023 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-22-2023 12:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  The combination of Kansas and Colorado would be another "Missouri moment". It would force the B1G to leap frog on a permanent basis from Nebraska to the west coast.
With the Big 12 going to 16 ( the Arizona schools, SDSU and Utah plus Memphis), it leaves the B1G only Stanford and Cal if they were to choose to expand further, but a huge gap of space and no real "fit" other than AAU status.

I think ESPN would choose to leave Notre Dame as they are, knowing that the Mouse will get the lions share of ND attention. Plus the one game per year the Irish have lined up with the SEC will give both another "big time" annual exposure.

Kansas was hoped to be placed in the ACC by ESPN in 2011 where they would bookend the rivalry weekend with the SEC and Missouri. When that didn't happen I think the Jayhawks have remained on the ESPN backburner and will be united again with Missouri. In other words they were always intended to be part of the Mouse's family. Colorado is the new Missouri and for the same reasons. It like Missouri is a state of 6 million. Like Missouri it is essentially the flagship with very little encumbrance from Colorado State. Like Missouri it is a huge blocking move should it be made, and like Missouri, the Big 10 was eyeing bigger prizes at the time. It also really blocks off the new SW in the SEC. Add the MTZ for niche broadcast purposes and it could pay.

So while SEC geriatrics go to Branson younger SEC fans could go skiing, or just go for the natural beauty of it. Really young SEC fans can still puke on the beaches at Panama City.

Of course Kansas could still be placed in the ACC. Maybe alongside of Missouri, which would remove that square peg out of the SEC's round hole.
That pair would be contiguous with Louisville's Kentucky. The SEC could still add Colorado to return to 16. Ridiculous? Probably.

The question to answer is how can the SEC have access to Kansas? The Big 12 GOR would keep Kansas unavailable until 2031. And since the Big 12 is funded by both ESPN and FOX, and developed jointly (with FOX keeping 60% of the basketball content), why would FOX allow Kansas to leave especially to the SEC?
As good as your contingencies look on paper, they may not be practical to implement.
For that matter how much will it cost ESPN/SEC to free up Florida State and Clemson before 2036?

Expanding with the combination of Kansas and TCU would have been a forward looking move 18 months ago for the ACC. Maybe, the opportunity represents itself in six years. A basketball blue blood plus a strong football brand with national aspirations in the state of Texas.

It would help if the ACC and SEC had a partnership to help each other compete in non-revenue sports. For example, the SEC would let KU and TCU compete as conference member in some non-revenue sports. The ACC would reciprocate in soccer (e.g., USC and UK), lacrosse (e.g., UF) or whatever other non-revenue sport made sense.

I suppose we'll never know 1) that was a possibility from the ACC perspective or 2) whether or not ESPN/FOX needed both to be able to keep the Big 12 afloat and wouldn't let them leave at that time.

(04-23-2023 11:23 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-22-2023 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  On the gossip circle, Swaim is now tweeting that Wilner and Canzano are acknowledging that losing some more PAC members is a possibility.

Will tweets from his money perch about the P2 plucking more schools put egg on his face?

I'd rather have tweets from the egg perch put money on my face if I was him.

If Kansas and Colorado was a SEC contingency as suggested, and the B1G is poised to take Washington and Oregon, with the Big 12 looking hard at the four corners schools, what does the SEC do?
Should they take Colorado now, by itself? Would the Big 12 then shift to the Arizona schools plus Utah and SDSU?
Where would the SEC get a potential partner for Colorado to ease scheduling?
Is this the time for the SEC to take on a developmental project in USF? It would give them a second school in Florida. Can a school or two be picked off from the Big 12 in 2031? Would the SEC wait that long carrying 17 teams?

(04-23-2023 11:23 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 09:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2023 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-22-2023 12:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  The combination of Kansas and Colorado would be another "Missouri moment". It would force the B1G to leap frog on a permanent basis from Nebraska to the west coast.
With the Big 12 going to 16 ( the Arizona schools, SDSU and Utah plus Memphis), it leaves the B1G only Stanford and Cal if they were to choose to expand further, but a huge gap of space and no real "fit" other than AAU status.

I think ESPN would choose to leave Notre Dame as they are, knowing that the Mouse will get the lions share of ND attention. Plus the one game per year the Irish have lined up with the SEC will give both another "big time" annual exposure.

Kansas was hoped to be placed in the ACC by ESPN in 2011 where they would bookend the rivalry weekend with the SEC and Missouri. When that didn't happen I think the Jayhawks have remained on the ESPN backburner and will be united again with Missouri. In other words they were always intended to be part of the Mouse's family. Colorado is the new Missouri and for the same reasons. It like Missouri is a state of 6 million. Like Missouri it is essentially the flagship with very little encumbrance from Colorado State. Like Missouri it is a huge blocking move should it be made, and like Missouri, the Big 10 was eyeing bigger prizes at the time. It also really blocks off the new SW in the SEC. Add the MTZ for niche broadcast purposes and it could pay.

So while SEC geriatrics go to Branson younger SEC fans could go skiing, or just go for the natural beauty of it. Really young SEC fans can still puke on the beaches at Panama City.

Of course Kansas could still be placed in the ACC. Maybe alongside of Missouri, which would remove that square peg out of the SEC's round hole.
That pair would be contiguous with Louisville's Kentucky. The SEC could still add Colorado to return to 16. Ridiculous? Probably.

The question to answer is how can the SEC have access to Kansas? The Big 12 GOR would keep Kansas unavailable until 2031. And since the Big 12 is funded by both ESPN and FOX, and developed jointly (with FOX keeping 60% of the basketball content), why would FOX allow Kansas to leave especially to the SEC?
As good as your contingencies look on paper, they may not be practical to implement.
For that matter how much will it cost ESPN/SEC to free up Florida State and Clemson before 2036?

Expanding with the combination of Kansas and TCU would have been a forward looking move 18 months ago for the ACC. Maybe, the opportunity represents itself in six years. A basketball blue blood plus a strong football brand with national aspirations in the state of Texas.

It would help if the ACC and SEC had a partnership to help each other compete in non-revenue sports. For example, the SEC would let KU and TCU compete as conference member in some non-revenue sports. The ACC would reciprocate in soccer (e.g., USC and UK), lacrosse (e.g., UF) or whatever other non-revenue sport made sense.

TCU didn't look the same 18 months ago as they do today. The combination of TCU/Kansas was dilutive for the ACC 18 months ago, and may or may not still be dilutive today. That's in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum, we're in the middle of a 1/4 century GoR and ESPN has all the control. So, what really matters is "what would ESPN pay the ACC to poach some schools from a g5/big 12/Pac?". I don't know the answer to that, but judging from the fact that the ACC has in fact not expanded, I think I have a pretty good idea.

Even if you could go back 18 months, knowing what we know now, and assuming that ESPN would pay fair market value for any team that the ACC was considering, I don't think that they'd add anybody. ESPN very well might decide to play straight with the ACC, but they'd need SOME compensation...hmmm, how about another 3 years per school added tacked on to that GoR?

It's really too bad though, we could have accomplished everything that we talk about here on this board in one fell swoop: Clemson/FSU to the SEC, UNC/UVA to the B1G, the ACC replaces the 4 departures with the left-behind 8 from the big 12, Conference 3 is set up to poach the Pac once USCLA leaves. The only difference would be that the 4 g5s wouldn't have joined the big 12, whereas based upon what actually happened, there's a possibility that a couple current ACC schools get left behind in a weakened ACC, instead.

(04-23-2023 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  If Kansas and Colorado was a SEC contingency as suggested, and the B1G is poised to take Washington and Oregon, with the Big 12 looking hard at the four corners schools, what does the SEC do?
Should they take Colorado now, by itself? Would the Big 12 then shift to the Arizona schools plus Utah and SDSU?
Where would the SEC get a potential partner for Colorado to ease scheduling?
Is this the time for the SEC to take on a developmental project in USF? It would give them a second school in Florida. Can a school or two be picked off from the Big 12 in 2031? Would the SEC wait that long carrying 17 teams?

I am 100% confident the SEC won't add USF in our lifetimes and 99% sure on Colorado.

(04-23-2023 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  If Kansas and Colorado was a SEC contingency as suggested, and the B1G is poised to take Washington and Oregon, with the Big 12 looking hard at the four corners schools, what does the SEC do?
Should they take Colorado now, by itself? Would the Big 12 then shift to the Arizona schools plus Utah and SDSU?
Where would the SEC get a potential partner for Colorado to ease scheduling?
Is this the time for the SEC to take on a developmental project in USF? It would give them a second school in Florida. Can a school or two be picked off from the Big 12 in 2031? Would the SEC wait that long carrying 17 teams?

We could carry 17 for awhile, the B1G ran with 11 for decades. However, we wouldn't do it for a marginal add like CU. The only school that either of the P2 does that for today is ND, and if there was an 18th that we had our eye on, we'd add them at the same time. The B1G isn't targeting CU currently and they're dilutive today, so we can just keep them stashed in the big 12 or Pac in case we decide to pluck them up later.

(04-23-2023 12:31 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  If Kansas and Colorado was a SEC contingency as suggested, and the B1G is poised to take Washington and Oregon, with the Big 12 looking hard at the four corners schools, what does the SEC do?
Should they take Colorado now, by itself? Would the Big 12 then shift to the Arizona schools plus Utah and SDSU?
Where would the SEC get a potential partner for Colorado to ease scheduling?
Is this the time for the SEC to take on a developmental project in USF? It would give them a second school in Florida. Can a school or two be picked off from the Big 12 in 2031? Would the SEC wait that long carrying 17 teams?

I am 100% confident the SEC won't add USF in our lifetimes and 99% sure on Colorado.

Colorado had 45,000 people at their spring practice the other day. Their fans want to support them, but their inept Administration has betrayed their trust for decades. I feel like that might be about to change.

JR would disagree, he's spoken many times of the potential of USF. Based upon recent events, I would say that UCF is more likely than USF if we feel like we need a 2nd in Florida and FSU/Miami aren't available, however. A lot can change in a short amount of time in realignment, so I would be hesitant to say much of anything with "100% confidence".

The thing I like about the way the SEC has expanded is that all of the additions (with the possible exception of Mizzou) have made sense. Texas A&M immediately had a rivalry with Arkansas; Texas and OU will come in and immediately have several regional rivals. They're all cultural fits. Unlike the Big Ten, who had Maryland and Rutgers showing up and playing Iowa and Minnesota...no one wants to see that.

Colorado would not be a fit in the SEC for a variety of reasons. I can't see it ever happening; if it does, the SEC will cease to be what's always made it great.

(04-23-2023 12:37 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:31 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  If Kansas and Colorado was a SEC contingency as suggested, and the B1G is poised to take Washington and Oregon, with the Big 12 looking hard at the four corners schools, what does the SEC do?
Should they take Colorado now, by itself? Would the Big 12 then shift to the Arizona schools plus Utah and SDSU?
Where would the SEC get a potential partner for Colorado to ease scheduling?
Is this the time for the SEC to take on a developmental project in USF? It would give them a second school in Florida. Can a school or two be picked off from the Big 12 in 2031? Would the SEC wait that long carrying 17 teams?

I am 100% confident the SEC won't add USF in our lifetimes and 99% sure on Colorado.

Colorado had 45,000 people at their spring practice the other day. Their fans want to support them, but their inept Administration has betrayed their trust for decades. I feel like that might be about to change.

JR would disagree, he's spoken many times of the potential of USF. Based upon recent events, I would say that UCF is more likely than USF if we feel like we need a 2nd in Florida and FSU/Miami aren't available, however. A lot can change in a short amount of time in realignment, so I would be hesitant to say much of anything with "100% confidence".

What USF has going for them is the academic profile and trajectory, not saying they are better than FSU, and as in real estate, location, location, location. It's not a question of their sports development, but of money. Give USF SEC shares of revenue and watch them zip past their competition.

Will they happen? Very unlikely. Why? Neither the Big 10 nor SEC are in the King building business. They are in the what can you do for me now business. For the SEC, Tampa/St.Pete is the bridge we need to reach the Central Florida audience and improve our viewers in South Florida, the real South Florida.

If the SEC truly wants to accomplish that, and I think we do, Florida State and Miami do it far better. But if as you suggest those two are not available and won't be for decade then by that time with SEC money USF can outshine one, or perhaps both of them with the right hire as coach and some matching donor and corporate money, the latter which being in the SEC would help them land. The donors are the part USF has to do for themselves.

(04-23-2023 12:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  If Kansas and Colorado was a SEC contingency as suggested, and the B1G is poised to take Washington and Oregon, with the Big 12 looking hard at the four corners schools, what does the SEC do?
Should they take Colorado now, by itself? Would the Big 12 then shift to the Arizona schools plus Utah and SDSU?
Where would the SEC get a potential partner for Colorado to ease scheduling?
Is this the time for the SEC to take on a developmental project in USF? It would give them a second school in Florida. Can a school or two be picked off from the Big 12 in 2031? Would the SEC wait that long carrying 17 teams?

We could carry 17 for awhile, the B1G ran with 11 for decades. However, we wouldn't do it for a marginal add like CU. The only school that either of the P2 does that for today is ND, and if there was an 18th that we had our eye on, we'd add them at the same time. The B1G isn't targeting CU currently and they're dilutive today, so we can just keep them stashed in the big 12 or Pac in case we decide to pluck them up later.

There are those that claim that ESPN was stashing teams in the ACC, that is until the GOR came along to secure content for the ACCN. By the time some of those "stashed" teams are available, they may be past their prime.

(04-23-2023 12:42 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  The thing I like about the way the SEC has expanded is that all of the additions (with the possible exception of Mizzou) have made sense. Texas A&M immediately had a rivalry with Arkansas; Texas and OU will come in and immediately have several regional rivals. They're all cultural fits. Unlike the Big Ten, who had Maryland and Rutgers showing up and playing Iowa and Minnesota...no one wants to see that.

Colorado would not be a fit in the SEC for a variety of reasons. I can't see it ever happening; if it does, the SEC will cease to be what's always made it great.

If we were talking about a 16 member SEC I would agree with you. And in case you missed my comment about Colorado, I said it was the same as with Missouri. ESPN pushed Missouri because of strategic reasons with regard to Oklahoma and Texas. It was a nice blocking move since Kansas needed a partner and ESPN had/has eyes on Kansas.

Colorado is not politically aligned with the Southeast, Kansas is more or less. But neither is Disney aligned politically with the Southeast. It's a business and as such there should be little room for politics, and total room for profit. Colorado cuts the Big 10, especially when taken with Kansas, from having any contiguity to the West Coast. Their PAC 12 additions are now totally flyover. Missouri was a blocking move, which is why it didn't make sense to you, or really any of us. I readily admit if we were told at breakfast that the SEC was about to add A&M everyone in the South would have said, "Wow! Great!" If those same people were told it was going to be Missouri, they would have choked on their biscuit and managed to get out a muffled, "What the hell did you just say?"

But in a conference of 24, or even 20, regional travel will be essential. The question then becomes is Colorado acceptable to Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

That's a different matter than are they acceptable to the SEC.

But none of that happens if they can't be monetized. Does a MTZ slot for TV add enough value? Does the market add enough value? I don't know. So while I won't say I'm 99% sure they won't be a member of the SEC, I'm comfortable saying the odds for it happening are long. But then I would have said that about Missouri as well. The SEC has gotten much of it wants. ESPN gets a biscuit when they need it. Do they have an interest in Colorado is the most important question and I don't know if they do or don't. I'm a lot more confident of their interest in Kansas.

Now to USF. The SEC offices have a major issue in that all members want games in Florida. The Gators simply can't handle the demand. Should FSU be available that is a no brainer. Miami gives reach into a part of Florida where the SEC isn't as strong. But if neither are available, the need will continue. As I said the SEC isn't in the king building business. But if a decade has to pass before FSU or Miami are available, the question over USF becomes an interesting one. Very unlikely, but worth watching under those circumstances.

(04-23-2023 12:42 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  The thing I like about the way the SEC has expanded is that all of the additions (with the possible exception of Mizzou) have made sense. Texas A&M immediately had a rivalry with Arkansas; Texas and OU will come in and immediately have several regional rivals. They're all cultural fits. Unlike the Big Ten, who had Maryland and Rutgers showing up and playing Iowa and Minnesota...no one wants to see that.

Colorado would not be a fit in the SEC for a variety of reasons. I can't see it ever happening; if it does, the SEC will cease to be what's always made it great.

That will come if the SEC tries to get too big. The idea of a 20 or 24 team conference will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

(04-23-2023 06:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:42 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  The thing I like about the way the SEC has expanded is that all of the additions (with the possible exception of Mizzou) have made sense. Texas A&M immediately had a rivalry with Arkansas; Texas and OU will come in and immediately have several regional rivals. They're all cultural fits. Unlike the Big Ten, who had Maryland and Rutgers showing up and playing Iowa and Minnesota...no one wants to see that.

Colorado would not be a fit in the SEC for a variety of reasons. I can't see it ever happening; if it does, the SEC will cease to be what's always made it great.

That will come if the SEC tries to get too big. The idea of a 20 or 24 team conference will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Not if there are only two gaggles and waddle of ducks.

In addition to the ACC schools on the board, the SEC could conceivably add Arizona State and Arizona, Kansas and Colorado and Utah. The geography is sane and the schools make appealing matchups with programs the SEC already has.

Four of the schools listed are currently in the PAC, of course. They could be added next year or at the next contract turnaround. If the B1G were to simultaneously expand with the PAC schools on its board, PAC officials would be saved the trouble of negotiating their next contract.

(04-23-2023 12:31 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  If Kansas and Colorado was a SEC contingency as suggested, and the B1G is poised to take Washington and Oregon, with the Big 12 looking hard at the four corners schools, what does the SEC do?
Should they take Colorado now, by itself? Would the Big 12 then shift to the Arizona schools plus Utah and SDSU?
Where would the SEC get a potential partner for Colorado to ease scheduling?
Is this the time for the SEC to take on a developmental project in USF? It would give them a second school in Florida. Can a school or two be picked off from the Big 12 in 2031? Would the SEC wait that long carrying 17 teams?

I am 100% confident the SEC won't add USF in our lifetimes and 99% sure on Colorado.

These are schools that have been mentioned repeatedly by the resident SEC cheerleader.

(04-23-2023 06:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:42 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  The thing I like about the way the SEC has expanded is that all of the additions (with the possible exception of Mizzou) have made sense. Texas A&M immediately had a rivalry with Arkansas; Texas and OU will come in and immediately have several regional rivals. They're all cultural fits. Unlike the Big Ten, who had Maryland and Rutgers showing up and playing Iowa and Minnesota...no one wants to see that.

Colorado would not be a fit in the SEC for a variety of reasons. I can't see it ever happening; if it does, the SEC will cease to be what's always made it great.

That will come if the SEC tries to get too big. The idea of a 20 or 24 team conference will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

I agree.

Heck, I had slight trepidation at the SEC taking TX and OU, because they have IMO ingested a lot of B12 content. Of course they had to take TX and OU, that was a slam-dunk, but still, culture matters, and IMO if the SEC gets too big, it can kill the conference.

IMO, if the SEC moves beyond 16, it should not go higher than 18, and only by adding two schools in its eastern footprint, nothing more from the B12.

(04-23-2023 07:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 06:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2023 12:42 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  The thing I like about the way the SEC has expanded is that all of the additions (with the possible exception of Mizzou) have made sense. Texas A&M immediately had a rivalry with Arkansas; Texas and OU will come in and immediately have several regional rivals. They're all cultural fits. Unlike the Big Ten, who had Maryland and Rutgers showing up and playing Iowa and Minnesota...no one wants to see that.

Colorado would not be a fit in the SEC for a variety of reasons. I can't see it ever happening; if it does, the SEC will cease to be what's always made it great.

That will come if the SEC tries to get too big. The idea of a 20 or 24 team conference will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Not if there are only two gaggles and waddle of ducks.

There are also a ton of young people from the Southeast who move to Colorado every year. When you consider that OU, Mizzou, A&M and UT will be in the league too it isn’t that far-fetched. Not advocating for it either, but it wouldn’t hurt the SEC in any appreciable way. CU just needs a league with a California presence more than it needs a Georgia/Florida/Alabama presence.