[/quote]
And you can speak to me about a taint when something is finally done about North Carolina. They suspended the women's basketball staff tonight. And poaching a coach from Notre Dame? Why? They haven't had anybody of relevance since Digger Phelps.
[/quote]

Maybe you should watch "Unverified" so that you don't speak from ignorance. As far as the women's basketball issue, has more to do with coaching "style" rather than anything NCAA related. What I find comical is the comments from fanboys of programs that are notorious for cheating and have been found guilty of breaking those rules. Last time I checked, UNC was not. Get over it.

As far as the ACC falling back after our HOFers retire, this conference had HOFers retire before and the train kept on rolling. There isn't a coach (including Cal and Self), that wouldn't jump at the opportunity to coach at those programs. Let's not kid ourselves. And if you think Mike Brey isn't relevant, you really should stick to conversations about football. Just saying.

(04-02-2019 09:31 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 08:41 AM)esayem Wrote:  This conversation is ridiculous. College basketball is and always will be about great coaching. I can rip off countless examples of a coach taking a less than noteworthy program to great heights starting with Frank McGuire at South Carolina and ending with Bruce Pearl at Auburn. The SEC won championships in the 90’s with Kentucky and Arkansas (Pitino and Richardson, two great coaches), multiple in the 2000’s with Billy D at Florida (another example of what a great coach can do). Tubby with Pitino’s crew, etc. Where was the SEC hype when Brady took the Tigers to the Final 4? I’ll give you that one was probably a fluke. Jury is out on Frank Martin.

The SEC is and was a great basketball conference going well back into the day. The Zion of yesteryear, Shaq, went to LSU for crying out loud! This conversation is overblown by SEC fanboys and worried ACC/Big Ten types.

Spending big bucks doesn’t always pan out, but you all know that.

100% spot on. You can't blame the SEC fanboys though, most have probably never watched a full game of basketball outside of late March before this season.

Season ticket holder here for football, basketball and baseball going back 40 years. Former donor of half scholarships prior to retirement. But tell yourself whatever you need to. I don't need your agreement or approval to understand that even a show cause Bruce Pearl would not have been a priority to Auburn basketball had the football money explosion not made it possible.

And you can keep whistling past the graveyard, but the landscape of college sports is radically changing. The nature of amateurism is beginning a metamorphosis that is going to end in some level of compensation. Corporate interest in athletes is going to remain a catalyst for it. And taxation will eventually play a hand as well in finalizing this change.

Within the upper echelon of sports revenue producing schools there will be further consolidation, albeit less numerous defections than in the past, but probably with more impact than past moves. I just don't see a world where money will not be a factor.

But so be it. Also, I strongly suggest that you learn how to make a point without being deliberately insulting in tone, if not language.

And while I won't bring it up again in this thread, I covered recruiting violations in the Southeast for over a decade. Spare me your blind faith in Carolina's alleged pristine record. But, kudos to your legal team.

As to your Hall of Fame coaches, I didn't say you wouldn't have them. I said they would cost you more.

Coach Cal just got a lifetime deal from UK.... 1 national championship in how many years, countless 5 star players, countless top 1 or 2 recruiting classes. Yeah, that football money is really paying off.

Better basketball for the SEC?
If you assume no movement between ACC, SEC, B1G and PAC within the next 20 years (which seems unlikely) and the Big 12 was divided up between those 4, I would place Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC. It's great for football, basketball and it gives a reason for Missouri to live. Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri create a solid pod for the SEC.
The B1G holds their collective nose and annexes West Virginia, to create a pod of Penn State, Rutgers, West Virginia and Maryland.
In the west they add Iowa State (Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, Illinois).
Texas (as expected) moves to the ACC as a partial with Baylor.
The PAC takes what ever they can stomach from the leftovers.

(04-03-2019 05:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  Better basketball for the SEC?
If you assume no movement between ACC, SEC, B1G and PAC within the next 20 years (which seems unlikely) and the Big 12 was divided up between those 4, I would place Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC. It's great for football, basketball and it gives a reason for Missouri to live. Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri create a solid pod for the SEC.
The B1G holds their collective nose and annexes West Virginia, to create a pod of Penn State, Rutgers, West Virginia and Maryland.
In the west they add Iowa State (Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, Illinois).
Texas (as expected) moves to the ACC as a partial with Baylor.
The PAC takes what ever they can stomach from the leftovers.

The B1G will NEVER add WVU. If they don't get what they want from the Big XII, they'll wait for a chance to poach either the ACC or the Pac-12... or for one of the AAC teams to "grow up" enough.

IMO, the ACC should never add Baylor - I'd much rather have TCU and/or WVU. Fan behavior can be fixed; a rotten administration is at the core of the problem.

I skipped reading the entire thread, if there is duplication, apologies.

The fundamental issue of whether the SEC money has purchased success is probably not a true measure. As has been argued elsewhere, everyone knows ESPN, Fox, CBS and NBC have been underpaying for sports for decades. The fact that the B1G could negotiate a favorable TV deal was not based on football alone, otherwise their deal would have been worth less than the SEC deal. The difference was hoops. Hoops has been long underpaid.

ESPN confirmed this fact when the ACC was paid well enough to stay among the P5. Football does not drive the bus as much as people think. It is the biggest elephant in the room, but hoops is a very large elephant in the same room. Lacrosse and baseball are not elephants.

Back to the SEC, Slive knew there was money in hoops. All SEC schools already played hoops. For a very little investment, and probably with some heavy influence from their SECN partner (ESPN), it really took little effort to make the connection. The SECN needs year round programming. Live sports are the biggest revenue drivers. A weak hoops conference is no driver of fan bases to watch a conference network, and the big networks will always try to put the most intriguing games on their networks, thus, the SEC needed to improve its hoops to drive up ratings and subsequently advertising revenue, making more money for ESPN and the SECN.

The ACC has been focused on the same issue from the football side. To the OP, the money helps, but the impetus was in place and the rewards justified the action regardless of the source of the funds for the investment in hoops.