(07-03-2019 07:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:30 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:55 PM)lion1983 Wrote:  Vandy would never leave the SEC for any other conference. And I'm not sure that they can be kicked out, even if they could, it's not all about athletic programs, the academics makes the SEC better.

I'm sure a lot of people said the same thing about Maryland never leaving the ACC, but they did. Never say never. The SEC would never kick out Vanderbilt though. That's just not how the SEC operates. The SEC has NEVER kicked out any member. Three members have left the SEC though: Georgia Tech, Tulane, and Sewanee or the University of the South, as it's also known.

It would be rare for any conference to"kick out" a member.
The ACC didn't kick out Maryland or South Carolina (although the chickens were unsuccessful in their attempts to rejoin).
The defunct website MR.SEC spent a lot of time explaining why Vanderbilt was not a "fit" in any fashion for the SEC and actively advocated their removal.
Vanderbilt, with a move to the ACC, would give ESPN dual marketing opportunities in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee (ACC/SEC) without interference with the "core" of either conference.

So would moving Virginia Tech or N.C. State to the SEC.

While moving NC State or Virginia Tech to the SEC or moving Auburn or Ole Miss to the ACC would indeed create dual marketing opportunities in North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi, those moves would interfere with the "core" of both conferences.

Va Tech isn't core ACC. Vanderbilt is a founding member of the SEC. The issue was Vandy, not Ole Miss or Auburn.

(07-01-2019 07:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would give the Big East a new media market, and Vandy did win the College World Series. And Vanderbilt does have pretty good men's basketball.

(07-01-2019 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Why would Vandy leave the SEC?

Exactly.

These threads that just assume Vandy or Missouri or Arkansas are just going to voluntarily leave the SEC are so dumb. It isn't going to happen

(07-03-2019 07:38 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Why would Vandy leave the SEC?

Exactly.

These threads that just assume Vandy or Missouri or Arkansas are just going to voluntarily leave the SEC are so dumb. It isn't going to happen

I agree completely on Arkansas, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on the other two.

(07-02-2019 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 08:39 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The thought of Vanderbilt leaving the SEC (or being asked to leave) is absurd. My great great aunt (the venerable Lucille Binns) was one of the first women to attend VU (this was in the early 1900s). And since then, I've had no fewer than 10 family members, on both my mother's and father's sides of the family, work at and/or attend the university.

You have to understand the dynamic at play related to Vanderbilt, Nashville and the SEC. If you do understand it, you know VU is never leaving (barring some insane scenario). Vanderbilt is not Maryland (and that is not a slight against UofM). Nashville and Atlanta are the two epicenters of the SEC. The SEC knows it and VU knows it. They are bonded.

While I essentially agree with you, I did want to remind you that the SEC is doing just fine in Atlanta without Georgia Tech. And New Orleans is still SEC territory without Tulane. I think we'll be adding more of Dallas to that impressive list before too long.

I agree with you fully, JRsec.

(07-01-2019 07:34 PM)Bogg Wrote:  Yes, but Vanderbilt will never walk away from the SEC revenue stream, so it's a moot point.

Vandy just won a National Championship in baseball and yes your right they are not leaving that revenue stream even if they have to take a beat down every year in FB to stay in the money. Vandy is the SEC's "Spring Team" with 2 Baseball National Championships.

(07-03-2019 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 07:38 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Why would Vandy leave the SEC?

Exactly.

These threads that just assume Vandy or Missouri or Arkansas are just going to voluntarily leave the SEC are so dumb. It isn't going to happen

I agree completely on Arkansas, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on the other two.

Unless there are drastic changes to the sport as a whole those two are not leaving for any other conference. There just isn't a realistic scenario.

Vandy is just going to decide to abandon longtime rivals and $50 million/year for no reason? Who other than the Big Ten (which has no interest) would make sense for Missouri

(07-03-2019 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:30 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:55 PM)lion1983 Wrote:  Vandy would never leave the SEC for any other conference. And I'm not sure that they can be kicked out, even if they could, it's not all about athletic programs, the academics makes the SEC better.

I'm sure a lot of people said the same thing about Maryland never leaving the ACC, but they did. Never say never. The SEC would never kick out Vanderbilt though. That's just not how the SEC operates. The SEC has NEVER kicked out any member. Three members have left the SEC though: Georgia Tech, Tulane, and Sewanee or the University of the South, as it's also known.

It would be rare for any conference to"kick out" a member.
The ACC didn't kick out Maryland or South Carolina (although the chickens were unsuccessful in their attempts to rejoin).
The defunct website MR.SEC spent a lot of time explaining why Vanderbilt was not a "fit" in any fashion for the SEC and actively advocated their removal.
Vanderbilt, with a move to the ACC, would give ESPN dual marketing opportunities in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee (ACC/SEC) without interference with the "core" of either conference.

So would moving Virginia Tech or N.C. State to the SEC.

Without some fundamental change in the nature of college football, it's pretty hard to see Vandy leaving the SEC. But if you are trying to increase the number of states where both the ACC and SEC are represented, all you would have to do is swap Vandy and NC State. That would also increase the number of SEC-ACC rivalry games from four to six. But I guess I will be long dead before that happens.

(07-03-2019 07:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:30 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:55 PM)lion1983 Wrote:  Vandy would never leave the SEC for any other conference. And I'm not sure that they can be kicked out, even if they could, it's not all about athletic programs, the academics makes the SEC better.

I'm sure a lot of people said the same thing about Maryland never leaving the ACC, but they did. Never say never. The SEC would never kick out Vanderbilt though. That's just not how the SEC operates. The SEC has NEVER kicked out any member. Three members have left the SEC though: Georgia Tech, Tulane, and Sewanee or the University of the South, as it's also known.

It would be rare for any conference to"kick out" a member.
The ACC didn't kick out Maryland or South Carolina (although the chickens were unsuccessful in their attempts to rejoin).
The defunct website MR.SEC spent a lot of time explaining why Vanderbilt was not a "fit" in any fashion for the SEC and actively advocated their removal.
Vanderbilt, with a move to the ACC, would give ESPN dual marketing opportunities in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee (ACC/SEC) without interference with the "core" of either conference.

So would moving Virginia Tech or N.C. State to the SEC.

Without some fundamental change in the nature of college football, it's pretty hard to see Vandy leaving the SEC. But if you are trying to increase the number of states where both the ACC and SEC are represented, all you would have to do is swap Vandy and NC State. That would also increase the number of SEC-ACC rivalry games from four to six. But I guess I will be long dead before that happens.

The way my Dr's are getting out and retiring that could be sooner rather than later for a lot of us Ken D.

But to the point, most of this is idle time speculation. I don't think either the SEC or Big 10 loses a single school. It's just too lucrative. So unless there is a radical shift, and pay for play would be one, I think most P5 schools stay where they are. Because of the geographical and logistical issues I think the PAC is pretty safe with regard to defections, unless perhaps the Big 10 took a division of 6 of them, but I think that would cost the Big 10 revenue because the monetizing of the PAC product just isn't there in the big way it is for the Big 10.

The most likely moves are still from the Big 12, but where they go could determine another tipping point because the value they would add to either the Big 10 or SEC will only exacerbate the gaps in revenue between those 2 and everyone else.

It would be well within corporate product placement to desire such swaps as some of these that are proposed, but it would never happen with the leaders of either conference and would have to be confined to mid tier at best to lower tier schools. Vandy for Duke, Ole Miss for Virginia Tech, etc. The big issue there is that content not markets will be determining relative value moving forward and even the third tier product value will depend largely just upon that individual schools draw for less than desirable games. To me the time frame in which those kinds of moves made sense passed after 2012.

It is absolutely why the Big 12 will be the most sought after product next time around. The content multiplication value of Texas and Oklahoma is massive in relation to the Big 10 or SEC. Neither the PAC nor ACC have full member brands as large as those two. If N.D. was a full member they would come the closest to adding that much value. So the struggle will be between the SEC and Big 10 for those two and the viable third option is for Texas and Oklahoma to do nothing.

There are now two schools of thought in realignment. The first camp thinks we will keep the same number of schools (65) divided into 4 or 5 conferences. Most of the speculation in this camp moves schools around so that we will eventually have four conferences.

The second camp believes that the total number of "p" schools will be reduced and only the strongest football brands will remain.

Both of these points of view have validity. But the notion that: the total number of schools would be reduced or conferences consolidated, and that the B1G and SEC could cherry pick the PAC, ACC and Big 12 while keeping their own weak sisters is ludicrous.

during the 1st ACC raid of the BE I believed that Vandy was a better fit for the ACC(and the ACC a better fit for Vandy) than BC and Syracuse (or pitt and Louisville for that matter) BE teams were an easier get .


I haven't heard any reports they were even considered which suggests to me expansion wasn't just about FB and a championship game. it was also an attempt to weaken the competition on the east coast

(07-05-2019 08:39 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  during the 1st ACC raid of the BE I believed that Vandy was a better fit for the ACC(and the ACC a better fit for Vandy) than BC and Syracuse (or pitt and Louisville for that matter) BE teams were an easier get .


I haven't heard any reports they were even considered which suggests to me expansion wasn't just about FB and a championship game. it was also an attempt to weaken the competition on the east coast

Yes. Vanderbilt wasn't going to move for less, or change their brand. And yes, ESPN took the programs they didn't want becoming an option for Big 10 expansion eastward. And the ACC was their cheapest product to own so paying for those brands in the ACC made a lot more sense (and cents) than potentially having to bid for them at Big 10 prices and back then the BTN was solely the possession of the Big 10 so they wouldn't even have T3 access to them.

(07-03-2019 07:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:30 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:55 PM)lion1983 Wrote:  Vandy would never leave the SEC for any other conference. And I'm not sure that they can be kicked out, even if they could, it's not all about athletic programs, the academics makes the SEC better.

I'm sure a lot of people said the same thing about Maryland never leaving the ACC, but they did. Never say never. The SEC would never kick out Vanderbilt though. That's just not how the SEC operates. The SEC has NEVER kicked out any member. Three members have left the SEC though: Georgia Tech, Tulane, and Sewanee or the University of the South, as it's also known.

It would be rare for any conference to"kick out" a member.
The ACC didn't kick out Maryland or South Carolina (although the chickens were unsuccessful in their attempts to rejoin).
The defunct website MR.SEC spent a lot of time explaining why Vanderbilt was not a "fit" in any fashion for the SEC and actively advocated their removal.
Vanderbilt, with a move to the ACC, would give ESPN dual marketing opportunities in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee (ACC/SEC) without interference with the "core" of either conference.

So would moving Virginia Tech or N.C. State to the SEC.

oWithout some fundamental change in the nature of college football, it's pretty hard to see Vandy leaving the SEC. But if you are trying to increase the number of states where both the ACC and SEC are represented, all you would have to do is swap Vandy and NC State. That would also increase the number of SEC-ACC rivalry games from four to six. But I guess I will be long dead before that happens.

College football has become big business that is being paid big dollars by big corporations that want/need big profits in return.
Those big businesses are shifting things around to make that happen.
If you can buy into the notion that schools were "parked" in the ACC, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that creating conflict within the region that you control is good for business. Whether that will extend into North Carolina/Virginia/Alabama/Tennessee remains to be seen, however, if such moves were to be made, placing Vanderbilt into the ACC would be a logical first step and not out of the realm of possibility.

(07-09-2019 05:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  College football has become big business that is being paid big dollars by big corporations that want/need big profits in return.
Those big businesses are shifting things around to make that happen.
If you can buy into the notion that schools were "parked" in the ACC, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that creating conflict within the region that you control is good for business. Whether that will extend into North Carolina/Virginia/Alabama/Tennessee remains to be seen, however, if such moves were to be made, placing Vanderbilt into the ACC would be a logical first step and not out of the realm of possibility.

ESPN gives advice and makes suggestions when negotiating deals, but they can't just move schools around at a whim.

Would the Big East take Vandy if they left the SEC? Might as well ask if Canada would take Maine if they left the United States...

(07-09-2019 08:28 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 05:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  College football has become big business that is being paid big dollars by big corporations that want/need big profits in return.
Those big businesses are shifting things around to make that happen.
If you can buy into the notion that schools were "parked" in the ACC, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that creating conflict within the region that you control is good for business. Whether that will extend into North Carolina/Virginia/Alabama/Tennessee remains to be seen, however, if such moves were to be made, placing Vanderbilt into the ACC would be a logical first step and not out of the realm of possibility.

ESPN gives advice and makes suggestions when negotiating deals, but they can't just move schools around at a whim.

ESPN also sets the valuations for potential moves and in so doing they passively control the process. Offer too little and the move is not made. Offer more and it is. So between their suggestions, and advice, and valuations the moves have pretty much gone their way.

I promise you that without ESPN nobody at the SEC headquarters woke up one morning and said Mizzou! They were thinking A&M and Oklahoma. When Boren wanted the Pokes to tag along it was the ESPN renegotiation clause that prevented it. Two new markets is what they would pay for. Therefore no Oklahoma and Oklahoma State at that time. A&M was the big play, particularly under the market footprint pay model. So when Boren's counter offer was turned down it was ESPN who suggested the 6 million people in Missouri. Machen at Florida was the back door communication with Missouri and the rest is history.

So like with many things in life major entities with lots of money find ways to manipulate things that affect their investments even if the appearance and the essential reality is that the school retains the decision over their future. ESPN is quite compelling in their advice, suggestions, and valuations, particularly when the lure of more money is present.

So the operative question is when do suggestions, advice, and valuations become coercion? I'd say when the money gets you to do something against your better nature.

(07-05-2019 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 08:39 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  during the 1st ACC raid of the BE I believed that Vandy was a better fit for the ACC(and the ACC a better fit for Vandy) than BC and Syracuse (or pitt and Louisville for that matter) BE teams were an easier get .


I haven't heard any reports they were even considered which suggests to me expansion wasn't just about FB and a championship game. it was also an attempt to weaken the competition on the east coast

Yes. Vanderbilt wasn't going to move for less, or change their brand. And yes, ESPN took the programs they didn't want becoming an option for Big 10 expansion eastward. And the ACC was their cheapest product to own so paying for those brands in the ACC made a lot more sense (and cents) than potentially having to bid for them at Big 10 prices and back then the BTN was solely the possession of the Big 10 so they wouldn't even have T3 access to them.

Vandy only moves if they drop football. And I'd say the odds are much higher of that than them moving to the Big 10 or ACC.

(07-09-2019 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 08:39 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  during the 1st ACC raid of the BE I believed that Vandy was a better fit for the ACC(and the ACC a better fit for Vandy) than BC and Syracuse (or pitt and Louisville for that matter) BE teams were an easier get .


I haven't heard any reports they were even considered which suggests to me expansion wasn't just about FB and a championship game. it was also an attempt to weaken the competition on the east coast

Yes. Vanderbilt wasn't going to move for less, or change their brand. And yes, ESPN took the programs they didn't want becoming an option for Big 10 expansion eastward. And the ACC was their cheapest product to own so paying for those brands in the ACC made a lot more sense (and cents) than potentially having to bid for them at Big 10 prices and back then the BTN was solely the possession of the Big 10 so they wouldn't even have T3 access to them.

Vandy only moves if they drop football. And I'd say the odds are much higher of that than them moving to the Big 10 or ACC.

It wouldn't surprise me if one day they became the SEC's first partial member. I consider that to be the likeliest option if Vandy de-emphasizes or abandons football.

(07-01-2019 07:37 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If Vandy needed to leave the ACC will will take them.

Vandy is one of four AAU schools in the SEC. They and Florida are the drivers of the expansion committee. The two schools they most recently added were also AAU. The Commodores add a level of academic respectability the SEC is building on, as they are made up of flagship Universities aspiring to hiring standing. Alabama is a prime example of a school that has deliberately been climbing up the academic ladder. Why would anyone in the SEC want them out? They are the Stanford, Northwestern and Duke equivalent the other power conferences have.

There is no doubt in my mind the SEC wants to be seen on par with the B1G and upper half of the Pac-12 in all things, not just sports. And more than a couple of the formerly lowly standing schools have been making stead progress in AI and institutional stature. There is nobody who wants to boot out Vandy, one of their leaders in that category, and no reason to. Besides they usually have pretty strong Basketball and other Olympic sports.

If the BE could add Duke would they take them?