(04-18-2013 01:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 12:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  My point though is that if they were to go to the B1G as some expect, the SEC can and will use that as an opportunity to get into the NC and VA markets and the SEC brand and schedule power would make those 2 very profitable additions even if they aren't UNC and UVA.

Believe it or not, you and I do not disagree about this. Should the B1G win the battle for UVA and UNC, then if the choice is between the B1G being in those two southern states and the SEC not being in those southern states, and the SEC adding NC State and VT as consolation prizes, then i agree the SEC should add them as consolation prizes. Because a consolation prize is better than nothing.

My point, however, is that they WOULD be consolation prizes, and for a conference like the SEC that fancies itself the king of the college sporting hill, having to accept consolation prizes after having lost out the main prizes (UNC and UVA) to the B1G in a part of the country that should be SEC home turf, well, that would indeed constitute a major blow to SEC status and prestige, and would indicate that the B1G, not the SEC, is the true king of the hill.

As has been stated before, both the BIG and SEC are at an impasse with UVA and UNC because both states want a soft landing spot for VT and NCST. The SEC does not want to appear as taking the leftovers, and the BIG cannot swallow adding the state schools. The SEC is in the best position to get UVA and UNC because they could conceivably add the state schools and not be harmed academically. Is it worth it? Would there be a big change of heart and the states of FL, GA, and SC saw the benefit in letting their state schools in to totally lock up the South? A fan/alumni's heart says "yes", an executive's head says "no".

My executives head says no for now. Once the networks have done their best to break up regional holds to maximize their respective advertising zones I doubt that they will want to continue with a market footprint model for payment. Too much duplication for the same states.

I suspect that the best leverage for the SEC, or Big 10 to hold one day is a consolidated core with a shared fringe. The consolidated core will be essential to leverage for the region and the shared fringe will be a buffer against switching back and forth between saturation models and footprint models for payout.

At some point it is essential for the SEC to hold Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech to consolidate the core of their identity. Whether or not we would need Louisville and Texas for core identity depends on how far the fringes eventually extend. (I don't see Miami as a factor.) Right now those are the fringes as would be Virginia. I think North Carolina is a state we would benefit from owning outright. And unless Oklahoma wants in I see no need for further expansion West.

I think 20 is going to be the best size, but I don't rule out 24. With 24 the entire Southeast becomes one cohesive unit. That's a ton of leverage considering the monopoly on the best product in the country and the fastest growing and most dynamic markets which include also some of the most affluent. Which by the way is one of the reasons for Delany's interest in our region.

(04-18-2013 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 01:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 12:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  My point though is that if they were to go to the B1G as some expect, the SEC can and will use that as an opportunity to get into the NC and VA markets and the SEC brand and schedule power would make those 2 very profitable additions even if they aren't UNC and UVA.

Believe it or not, you and I do not disagree about this. Should the B1G win the battle for UVA and UNC, then if the choice is between the B1G being in those two southern states and the SEC not being in those southern states, and the SEC adding NC State and VT as consolation prizes, then i agree the SEC should add them as consolation prizes. Because a consolation prize is better than nothing.

My point, however, is that they WOULD be consolation prizes, and for a conference like the SEC that fancies itself the king of the college sporting hill, having to accept consolation prizes after having lost out the main prizes (UNC and UVA) to the B1G in a part of the country that should be SEC home turf, well, that would indeed constitute a major blow to SEC status and prestige, and would indicate that the B1G, not the SEC, is the true king of the hill.

As has been stated before, both the BIG and SEC are at an impasse with UVA and UNC because both states want a soft landing spot for VT and NCST. The SEC does not want to appear as taking the leftovers, and the BIG cannot swallow adding the state schools. The SEC is in the best position to get UVA and UNC because they could conceivably add the state schools and not be harmed academically. Is it worth it? Would there be a big change of heart and the states of FL, GA, and SC saw the benefit in letting their state schools in to totally lock up the South? A fan/alumni's heart says "yes", an executive's head says "no".

My executives head says no for now. Once the networks have done their best to break up regional holds to maximize their respective advertising zones I doubt that they will want to continue with a market footprint model for payment. Too much duplication for the same states.

I suspect that the best leverage for the SEC, or Big 10 to hold one day is a consolidated core with a shared fringe. The consolidated core will be essential to leverage for the region and the shared fringe will be a buffer against switching back and forth between saturation models and footprint models for payout.

At some point it is essential for the SEC to hold Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech to consolidate the core of their identity. Whether or not we would need Louisville and Texas for core identity depends on how far the fringes eventually extend. (I don't see Miami as a factor.) Right now those are the fringes as would be Virginia. I think North Carolina is a state we would benefit from owning outright. And unless Oklahoma wants in I see no need for further expansion West.

I think 20 is going to be the best size, but I don't rule out 24. With 24 the entire Southeast becomes one cohesive unit. That's a ton of leverage considering the monopoly on the best product in the country and the fastest growing and most dynamic markets which include also some of the most affluent. Which by the way is one of the reasons for Delany's interest in our region.

Absolutely agree. The benefits extend way beyond athletics, but just keeping it in that scope, a 24 league SEC could offer every sport because it would not need full participation from every league. If just half the league would agree to sports like lacrosse, equestrian, swimming/diving, etc., there is nothing besides hockey and beach volleyball that could not be offered in a student's home or neighboring state. What gets lost in the conversation is Ga. Tech, FSU, and Clemson are great schools (all top 100) with over $60 million annual revenue, not to mention locking up three fast growing states. It is not like adding more Mississippi State's.

(04-18-2013 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  At some point it is essential for the SEC to hold Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech to consolidate the core of their identity. Whether or not we would need Louisville and Texas for core identity depends on how far the fringes eventually extend.

The SEC's core identity is rock-solid despite FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech being in the ACC. That's because the SEC has Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia, the flagship schools, of those states. The threat to the core identity would be if the status of those flagships was threatened, if there was a danger of any one of them leaving for another conference. And *that* is only a danger if the other conference is considerably stronger financially than the SEC, since given the obvious cultural preference for the SEC, if the money was even close, those schools would opt to remain in the SEC. And since the ACC isn't and never will be financially much stronger than the SEC, the ACC is no existential threat to the SEC's core, whether it has Clemson, FSU, and GT or if it doesn't.

In contrast, the B1G is a lot finaincially stronger than the ACC, and if it makes a lot more money from its network than the SEC does from its network, than it might be in a financial position to tempt flagships like Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina and thus threaten the SEC's core. But crucially, that threat depends on money, and exists whether FSU, Clemson, and GT are members of the B1G or not.

Thus, IMO, the SEC has no need to ever invite Clemson, FSU, or GT, as the only way the SEC can protect its core is by expanding via adding new schools that make it a financially stronger conference, strong enough that no significant money-gap develops vis-a-vis the B1G. And the two schools way at the top of that list would be North Carolina and Texas, not FSU, Clemson, or GT. The protection of the SEC's core, it's geographical center, depends on the same thing that protects all of its other "territories" - financial strength.

Now, I do agree that geography matters: It would not make sense for the SEC to add schools that would significantly dilute its Southern character, because the main reason it is financially so strong is that fans of its schools place great value on the southern cultural roots of its members, and the rivalries that naturally flow through that. Yes, in a given year when Oregon is great and Ole Miss sucks, maybe more LSU fans would rather see LSU play Oregon, but over the long haul, they'd much rather play Ole Miss every year. IOW's, part of the "core strength" of the SEC is in its southern character, and if you dilute that, then fans will lose interest and money will dry up. Southern character thus places a constraint on the notion that the SEC should add new schools that are valuable media/money properties. They should be that, but they should also be Southern.

Neither UNC nor Texas would dilute that southern character.

(04-18-2013 02:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  At some point it is essential for the SEC to hold Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech to consolidate the core of their identity. Whether or not we would need Louisville and Texas for core identity depends on how far the fringes eventually extend.

The SEC's core identity is rock-solid despite FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech being in the ACC. That's because the SEC has Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia, the flagship schools, of those states. The threat to the core identity would be if the status of those flagships was threatened, if there was a danger of any one of them leaving for another conference. And *that* is only a danger if the other conference is considerably stronger financially than the SEC, since given the obvious cultural preference for the SEC, if the money was even close, those schools would opt to remain in the SEC. And since the ACC isn't and never will be financially much stronger than the SEC, the ACC is no existential threat to the SEC's core, whether it has Clemson, FSU, and GT or if it doesn't.

In contrast, the B1G is a lot finaincially stronger than the ACC, and if it makes a lot more money from its network than the SEC does from its network, than it might be in a financial position to tempt flagships like Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina and thus threaten the SEC's core. But crucially, that threat depends on money, and exists whether FSU, Clemson, and GT are members of the B1G or not.

Thus, IMO, the SEC has no need to ever invite Clemson, FSU, or GT, as the only way the SEC can protect its core is by expanding via adding new schools that make it a financially stronger conference, strong enough that no significant money-gap develops vis-a-vis the B1G. And the two schools way at the top of that list would be North Carolina and Texas, not FSU, Clemson, or GT. The protection of the SEC's core, it's geographical center, depends on the same thing that protects all of its other "territories" - financial strength.

Now, I do agree that geography matters: It would not make sense for the SEC to add schools that would significantly dilute its Southern character, because the main reason it is financially so strong is that fans of its schools place great value on the southern cultural roots of its members, and the rivalries that naturally flow through that. Yes, in a given year when Oregon is great and Ole Miss sucks, maybe more LSU fans would rather see LSU play Oregon, but over the long haul, they'd much rather play Ole Miss every year. IOW's, part of the "core strength" of the SEC is in its southern character, and if you dilute that, then fans will lose interest and money will dry up. Southern character thus places a constraint on the notion that the SEC should add new schools that are valuable media/money properties. They should be that, but they should also be Southern.

Neither UNC nor Texas would dilute that southern character.

I understand that point of view and from that perspective I concur. However what I'm speaking of is another paradigm shift in the method of calculating payment to the conferences in 10 years when the new contracts come up.

Networks have encouraged the 1 school per state philosophy because new markets is what they have rewarded. That's a dangling carrot for now. In 10 years those same networks aren't going to want to pay the Big 10 and the SEC full price for the same states regardless of whether it is tier 1 or 2. They aren't going to want to pay the ACC and SEC both full price for the state of Florida or the Big 12 and the SEC both full price for Texas. Realignment has broken up large states on purpose.

The purpose is if a switch is made to a market saturation model (which a la carte could certainly force) then it is not inconceivable that the networks, who have in 10 years tied all of the collegiate property up in contracts and has broken up their respective regional domination of product to a degree, now has an opportunity to maximize their own profits by either paying just for the homes that subscribe to a particular conference network, or worse and more likely, simply pay each conference for the percentage of the state they actually represent. In the state of Florida for example the split could be between 5 schools potentially. Suddenly the SEC doesn't make what they once did for holding the Gators. The Big 12 might lose 25% of the state of Texas or possibly more.

What will the conferences do then? They really can't afford to realign yet again. That's why the safest way to hedge your vulnerabilities is to consolidate your geographical core and expand on the fringes with shared states. Arguably it would be hard for the SEC to lose a lot of value in Florida under a new system such as the one I've described if they own both F.S.U. and Florida. Owning all of Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana (essentially), Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina and North Carolina would make the gains in Virginia balance out with losing half of Kentucky or a percentage of Texas. Recovering from that kind of potential shift in payment calculations would keep the conference strong. That is why I said Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State would be essential in holding onto revenue regardless of the calculation model. Picking up U.N.C. and N.C. State both would do the same for N. Carolina.

That is why the Big 10 should at some point look at Iowa State and Pittsburgh. Boston College, Syracuse, and Connecticut are too tempting as essentially the only upper tier teams in their states. Locking up New England should be a priority for the Big 10 to minimize the risk of having the payment model change for them. Delany has been smarter than many give him credit for being. Of his 4 additions 3 have been the sole University of consequence in their state.

They can share Virginia, Kansas, or Oklahoma if need be. Growth on the fringes consolidation at the core will be the next strategies that should be employed by the conferences. That strategy will lock the networks into a tighter range of payment calculations. Otherwise the conferences are vulnerable to payout model shifts. And the time to prepare for this is now, not in ten years.

Just because I'm paranoid about this doesn't mean the networks aren't out to maximize their profits off of conferences that are now too spread out and late to the game to defend their bases and too weary of realignment to react in their self interest. Remember their is a reason that the SEC is being rewarded to extend while ignoring regional and national brands closer to home. And weren't you very correctly saying the other day that this wasn't as much about markets as brands. Now you were using brands in your flagship argument, which was appropriate. Now I'm using brands to point out why you don't want to leave the ones within your core for someone else to pick up. It might cost you some additional revenue to take them today, but it might cost you even more of what you've grown accustomed to earning not to take them against the risk of tomorrow. The networks aren't any of our friends. They make money off of us. At best it is a symbiosis at worst it is parasitic.

(04-18-2013 01:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 01:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:23 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

Tennessee will never join the B1G. Nobody here in Vol country wants anything to do with the B1G. It's SEC all the way. It's been that way for about 80 years now, and nobody wants that to change...

Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about Tennessee or the SEC...

Bit, i understand that the culture of Tennessee is purely old-south and SEC. But, I never thought I'd see the twin towers or the berlin wall fall down, and yet both did. Point is, stranger things have happened, and Tennessee has never been in the position of being offered say $20 million more per year by the B1G. If they are, they may take the money.

Probably not, but .... money drives the bus at universities these days.

It won't happen. B1G football is considered boring and unappealing to everyone I know, and the fans won't be in favor of it. The big money boosters won't buy that, and ultimately they're the ones calling the shots...

(04-18-2013 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I understand that point of view and from that perspective I concur. However what I'm speaking of is another paradigm shift in the method of calculating payment to the conferences in 10 years when the new contracts come up.

Networks have encouraged the 1 school per state philosophy because new markets is what they have rewarded. That's a dangling carrot for now. In 10 years those same networks aren't going to want to pay the Big 10 and the SEC full price for the same states regardless of whether it is tier 1 or 2. They aren't going to want to pay the ACC and SEC both full price for the state of Florida or the Big 12 and the SEC both full price for Texas. Realignment has broken up large states on purpose.

.................................

Just because I'm paranoid about this doesn't mean the networks aren't out to maximize their profits off of conferences that are now too spread out and late to the game to defend their bases and too weary of realignment to react in their self interest. Remember their is a reason that the SEC is being rewarded to extend while ignoring regional and national brands closer to home. And weren't you very correctly saying the other day that this wasn't as much about markets as brands. Now you were using brands in your flagship argument, which was appropriate. Now I'm using brands to point out why you don't want to leave the ones within your core for someone else to pick up. It might cost you some additional revenue to take them today, but it might cost you even more of what you've grown accustomed to earning not to take them against the risk of tomorrow. The networks aren't any of our friends. They make money off of us. At best it is a symbiosis at worst it is parasitic.

I guess my thinking is that a paradigm shift isn't likely because IMO the networks already are sort of paying on an a-la-carte model. E.g., the ACC doesn't get as much money from its media deal as the SEC in part because when the networks figure the value of ACC and SEC athletics, they aren't paying the ACC as much for the Georgia market as they pay the SEC for the Georgia market, because the University of Georgia clearly "owns" a larger % of that market than does Georgia Tech. Likewise, the SEC isn't getting paid as much for Texas as is the Big 12, because the University of Texas (as well as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU) collectively own a bigger % of that market than does Texas A/M.

Now true, maybe with cable subscriptions and advances in measuring viewership, the networks will be able to fine-tune their estimation of what schools in a state own what % of that state's market, but there's no reason to think that calibration will work against the SEC, such that it would behoove them to add second schools like FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech. At least, not before attempting to add more prestigious brands such as Texas and North Carolina. I'd take Virginia over those schools, too.

As for spreading too thin, i think the SEC doesn't have that problem. Both the PAC and B1G have clearly added schools that are outside their historical cultural area (Colorado and Maryland/Rutgers, respectively). But Texas A/M is from a state of the old confederacy, and Missouri is a north/south border state with a powerful southern heritage as well. Missouri also borders on three existing SEC states. So i don't see the SEC as having done nearly as much to denude its basic character as have the B1G and PAC, and adding schools like Virginia and North Carolina, or Texas, wouldn't do that either.

(04-18-2013 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I understand that point of view and from that perspective I concur. However what I'm speaking of is another paradigm shift in the method of calculating payment to the conferences in 10 years when the new contracts come up.

Networks have encouraged the 1 school per state philosophy because new markets is what they have rewarded. That's a dangling carrot for now. In 10 years those same networks aren't going to want to pay the Big 10 and the SEC full price for the same states regardless of whether it is tier 1 or 2. They aren't going to want to pay the ACC and SEC both full price for the state of Florida or the Big 12 and the SEC both full price for Texas. Realignment has broken up large states on purpose.

.................................

Just because I'm paranoid about this doesn't mean the networks aren't out to maximize their profits off of conferences that are now too spread out and late to the game to defend their bases and too weary of realignment to react in their self interest. Remember their is a reason that the SEC is being rewarded to extend while ignoring regional and national brands closer to home. And weren't you very correctly saying the other day that this wasn't as much about markets as brands. Now you were using brands in your flagship argument, which was appropriate. Now I'm using brands to point out why you don't want to leave the ones within your core for someone else to pick up. It might cost you some additional revenue to take them today, but it might cost you even more of what you've grown accustomed to earning not to take them against the risk of tomorrow. The networks aren't any of our friends. They make money off of us. At best it is a symbiosis at worst it is parasitic.

I guess my thinking is that a paradigm shift isn't likely because IMO the networks already are sort of paying on an a-la-carte model. E.g., the ACC doesn't get as much money from its media deal as the SEC in part because when the networks figure the value of ACC and SEC athletics, they aren't paying the ACC as much for the Georgia market as they pay the SEC for the Georgia market, because the University of Georgia clearly "owns" a larger % of that market than does Georgia Tech. Likewise, the SEC isn't getting paid as much for Texas as is the Big 12, because the University of Texas (as well as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU) collectively own a bigger % of that market than does Texas A/M.

Now true, maybe with cable subscriptions and advances in measuring viewership, the networks will be able to fine-tune their estimation of what schools in a state own what % of that state's market, but there's no reason to think that calibration will work against the SEC, such that it would behoove them to add second schools like FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech. At least, not before attempting to add more prestigious brands such as Texas and North Carolina. I'd take Virginia over those schools, too.

As for spreading too thin, i think the SEC doesn't have that problem. Both the PAC and B1G have clearly added schools that are outside their historical cultural area (Colorado and Maryland/Rutgers, respectively). But Texas A/M is from a state of the old confederacy, and Missouri is a north/south border state with a powerful southern heritage as well. Missouri also borders on three existing SEC states. So i don't see the SEC as having done nearly as much to denude its basic character as have the B1G and PAC, and adding schools like Virginia and North Carolina, or Texas, wouldn't do that either.

We're definitely on the same page with preferences for additions.
North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Duke in that order would be my initial target list. Round out candidates would be Florida State and perhaps West Virginia. The Jayhawks don't really fit but it would be a great hoops grab and it would please Mizzou.

I suppose we would take the Irish if they ever came calling but that would truly be surrealistic. It would almost be worth it to see the Big 10 reaction. But it is in no way a fit except that we are the in the Bible Belt and share a love of the right kind of green.

There is another consideration for F.S.U. and Clemson and possibly Georgia Tech and that is if there is ever a move to 20 they would have nowhere else to go as there really could only be 3 conferences of 20 - 24 at that point and the political pressure would be immense for the SEC to accept them. Then there is the rivalry issue. At that point it would be two conferences under one umbrella anyway. Enjoyed the coversation. JR

(04-18-2013 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I understand that point of view and from that perspective I concur. However what I'm speaking of is another paradigm shift in the method of calculating payment to the conferences in 10 years when the new contracts come up.

Networks have encouraged the 1 school per state philosophy because new markets is what they have rewarded. That's a dangling carrot for now. In 10 years those same networks aren't going to want to pay the Big 10 and the SEC full price for the same states regardless of whether it is tier 1 or 2. They aren't going to want to pay the ACC and SEC both full price for the state of Florida or the Big 12 and the SEC both full price for Texas. Realignment has broken up large states on purpose.

.................................

Just because I'm paranoid about this doesn't mean the networks aren't out to maximize their profits off of conferences that are now too spread out and late to the game to defend their bases and too weary of realignment to react in their self interest. Remember their is a reason that the SEC is being rewarded to extend while ignoring regional and national brands closer to home. And weren't you very correctly saying the other day that this wasn't as much about markets as brands. Now you were using brands in your flagship argument, which was appropriate. Now I'm using brands to point out why you don't want to leave the ones within your core for someone else to pick up. It might cost you some additional revenue to take them today, but it might cost you even more of what you've grown accustomed to earning not to take them against the risk of tomorrow. The networks aren't any of our friends. They make money off of us. At best it is a symbiosis at worst it is parasitic.

I guess my thinking is that a paradigm shift isn't likely because IMO the networks already are sort of paying on an a-la-carte model. E.g., the ACC doesn't get as much money from its media deal as the SEC in part because when the networks figure the value of ACC and SEC athletics, they aren't paying the ACC as much for the Georgia market as they pay the SEC for the Georgia market, because the University of Georgia clearly "owns" a larger % of that market than does Georgia Tech. Likewise, the SEC isn't getting paid as much for Texas as is the Big 12, because the University of Texas (as well as Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU) collectively own a bigger % of that market than does Texas A/M.

Now true, maybe with cable subscriptions and advances in measuring viewership, the networks will be able to fine-tune their estimation of what schools in a state own what % of that state's market, but there's no reason to think that calibration will work against the SEC, such that it would behoove them to add second schools like FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech. At least, not before attempting to add more prestigious brands such as Texas and North Carolina. I'd take Virginia over those schools, too.

As for spreading too thin, i think the SEC doesn't have that problem. Both the PAC and B1G have clearly added schools that are outside their historical cultural area (Colorado and Maryland/Rutgers, respectively). But Texas A/M is from a state of the old confederacy, and Missouri is a north/south border state with a powerful southern heritage as well. Missouri also borders on three existing SEC states. So i don't see the SEC as having done nearly as much to denude its basic character as have the B1G and PAC, and adding schools like Virginia and North Carolina, or Texas, wouldn't do that either.

We're definitely on the same page with preferences for additions.
North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Duke in that order would be my initial target list. Round out candidates would be Florida State and perhaps West Virginia. The Jayhawks don't really fit but it would be a great hoops grab and it would please Mizzou.

I suppose we would take the Irish if they ever came calling but that would truly be surrealistic. It would almost be worth it to see the Big 10 reaction. But it is in no way a fit except that we are the in the Bible Belt and share a love of the right kind of green.

There is another consideration for F.S.U. and Clemson and possibly Georgia Tech and that is if there is ever a move to 20 they would have nowhere else to go as there really could only be 3 conferences of 20 - 24 at that point and the political pressure would be immense for the SEC to accept them. Then there is the rivalry issue. At that point it would be two conferences under one umbrella anyway. Enjoyed the coversation. JR

Our preferences for SEC expansion are almost identical, though I'd have Texas ahead of UVA and Oklahoma ahead of Kansas. Enjoyed the conversation as well.

(04-18-2013 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:23 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

As someone who grew up about 10 miles from the Maryland campus, trust me, there were very deep and enduring ties between Maryland and the ACC as well. And yet the B1G was able to throw enough money at them to overcome those ties.

History shows that there are very few intangible/cultural ties that can't be overcome with enough money...

UT and SEC football are different. The Deep South has a hard time giving up on stuff like this for better or worse. You live in Louisiana, you should know this

(04-19-2013 08:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:23 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

Too
You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

UK might have a minuscule chance of leaving if the Big Ten got UNC and Duke.

But Tennessee will never in a million years leave the SEC. It just isn't happening and there are too many cultural ties.

As someone who grew up about 10 miles from the Maryland campus, trust me, there were very deep and enduring ties between Maryland and the ACC as well. And yet the B1G was able to throw enough money at them to overcome those ties.

History shows that there are very few intangible/cultural ties that can't be overcome with enough money...

UT and SEC football are different. The Deep South has a hard time giving up on stuff like this for better or worse. You live in Louisiana, you should know this

I know how deep cultural ties run in the south. I also know that money talks very loud down here too.