Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,723
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 200
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1
Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
There are many thoughts on what the SEC should be looking for in the next realignment. Some are more reasonable than others and some are riskier than others.

Let me preface by saying that my bias is towards larger conferences stretching across multiple markets because I think that puts greater pressure on TV networks. The media companies tend to win when they force conferences to compete against each other for air time and resources. It also makes life easier for networks when they can dictate terms to us. I'm not a fan of that dynamic so I tend to look at these solutions from the perspective of cutting the media companies off on that front.

Here is basically what I would do if I could pull it off:

I'm going to raid the heart of the Big 12 and I'm going to grow the economic impact of the SEC so much that the ACC schools have uncomfortable choices to make.

Some of the moves aren't economically viable in and of themselves. We know that Texas and Oklahoma are basically the only ones that will make us money, but that reality is based on what networks are currently paying in a market that they are strong-arming. Basically, they're pulling too many strings and then telling the conferences what they'll provide.

So my ultimate goal here is to alter the relationships with the networks. It's not a good dynamic for us so even if we have to take a short term loss, I think we have greater gains in the future.

Texas and Oklahoma are necessary here for obvious reasons. Texas Tech might also be necessary to smooth things over with the political/financial element in TX. Oklahoma State is probably not necessary as the economic might of the state of OK doesn't really demand they be accounted for.

Beyond that, I think we should be moving to new markets. Kansas and Iowa State serve that purpose. West Virginia also serves that purpose.

At this point, the SEC has 20 schools. They've taken every market that the Big 12 has to offer...every school with reasonably attractive content...and certainly every major player. We've also added 3 AAU schools at that.

The divisional alignments are of less concern to me. What I'm more focused on is creating a dynamic where the Big 12 cannot be rebuilt in any real fashion. It's done even if the name lives on. It's value has been transferred.

Now the ACC has some decisions to make. Do they join up with the economic might of the new SEC or do they fit more so with the Big Ten?

Now we can reasonably conclude that no one in the ACC would add value anyway, but that's predicated on a market defined by the rules of the major networks. My goal here is to circumvent them. The ACC becomes the final battleground because only here do we have markets/schools that could be consumed by the Big Ten.
03-20-2020 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bear Catlett Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 551
Joined: Jan 2020
Reputation: 20
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
I think you're being a bit presumptuous.

Sure, the SEC for the most part can call their own shots. However, the B1G can too. I just don't think the SEC can walk in to B12 country and say "we'll take you, you and you" without the B1G having a say so.

You don't think that the B1G hasn't ever reached out to UT, OU and Kansas? So what's your move if B12 big three up and decide that they want to go with the B1G instead?
03-24-2020 08:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,723
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 200
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-24-2020 08:22 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I think you're being a bit presumptuous.

Sure, the SEC for the most part can call their own shots. However, the B1G can too. I just don't think the SEC can walk in to B12 country and say "we'll take you, you and you" without the B1G having a say so.

You don't think that the B1G hasn't ever reached out to UT, OU and Kansas? So what's your move if B12 big three up and decide that they want to go with the B1G instead?

I said IF I could pull it off.

The Big Ten is also influential, but there's no more reason to assume they can get everything they want either.

My premise is that some of these schools would rather move together and I think the Big Ten would be less likely to take such a grouping. For example, Texas Tech would probably not be acceptable to the Big Ten. That's also assuming Texas would really want to go there in the first place. I doubt that simply because there are too many factors that would make the B1G more cumbersome for them.

It's possible that the B1G would not accept Oklahoma if Texas isn't in the picture. I don't know that for a fact, but there are reasonable people who conclude that.

What's my move if these schools head to the Big Ten? Settle for 2nd place, I guess. I'd still be interested in cracking the ACC, but that's less likely without some additional economic punch to leverage against the networks.
03-24-2020 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,999
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Nashville
Post: #4
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
I think this exercise sheds more light on Missouri's importance than anything else. Part of why I think the BIG was short-sighted to not take Missouri when they had the chance is the bridge it builds to Oklahoma. Without Missouri, Kansas makes zero sense to the SEC in terms of culture. If Missouri were in the BIG right now, we would expect Kansas to the BIG with Oklahoma making reasonable sense.

With Missouri in the SEC, Oklahoma to the BIG makes little geographical sense, and Kansas at least makes some sense. I agree that Texas to the BIG makes little sense. Texas as an Independent only playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year in only football? Fine, but they make no sense as a BIG full conference member. I think the SEC backed into it, but taking Missouri was a good strategic move for the long game. In the short game, we need Missouri to start producing their revenue potential, but that is a whole other thread...
03-27-2020 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,723
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 200
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-27-2020 02:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think this exercise sheds more light on Missouri's importance than anything else. Part of why I think the BIG was short-sighted to not take Missouri when they had the chance is the bridge it builds to Oklahoma. Without Missouri, Kansas makes zero sense to the SEC in terms of culture. If Missouri were in the BIG right now, we would expect Kansas to the BIG with Oklahoma making reasonable sense.

With Missouri in the SEC, Oklahoma to the BIG makes little geographical sense, and Kansas at least makes some sense. I agree that Texas to the BIG makes little sense. Texas as an Independent only playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year in only football? Fine, but they make no sense as a BIG full conference member. I think the SEC backed into it, but taking Missouri was a good strategic move for the long game. In the short game, we need Missouri to start producing their revenue potential, but that is a whole other thread...

I do think the SEC backed into it to some degree, but they made a play for Oklahoma back then. It just didn't work because they wanted Oklahoma State to come with them.

I know most don't agree with me, but Kansas seems like a natural fit. They are by no means Southern culturally, I agree, but with the way the country has evolved the last few decades; I think a flagship in a heartland state that doesn't bend over backwards for pro sports is pretty well in keeping with the SEC model. Actually, I'd argue they fit better than Missouri does and that's not a knock on Mizzou.

The only thing that really sticks out about them is their lack of football prowess, but they're a rare name brand in basketball. That and they're making strides in the football department, most likely to secure a spot in a major conference going forward.
03-27-2020 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,116
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2429
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-27-2020 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 02:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think this exercise sheds more light on Missouri's importance than anything else. Part of why I think the BIG was short-sighted to not take Missouri when they had the chance is the bridge it builds to Oklahoma. Without Missouri, Kansas makes zero sense to the SEC in terms of culture. If Missouri were in the BIG right now, we would expect Kansas to the BIG with Oklahoma making reasonable sense.

With Missouri in the SEC, Oklahoma to the BIG makes little geographical sense, and Kansas at least makes some sense. I agree that Texas to the BIG makes little sense. Texas as an Independent only playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year in only football? Fine, but they make no sense as a BIG full conference member. I think the SEC backed into it, but taking Missouri was a good strategic move for the long game. In the short game, we need Missouri to start producing their revenue potential, but that is a whole other thread...

I do think the SEC backed into it to some degree, but they made a play for Oklahoma back then. It just didn't work because they wanted Oklahoma State to come with them.

I know most don't agree with me, but Kansas seems like a natural fit. They are by no means Southern culturally, I agree, but with the way the country has evolved the last few decades; I think a flagship in a heartland state that doesn't bend over backwards for pro sports is pretty well in keeping with the SEC model. Actually, I'd argue they fit better than Missouri does and that's not a knock on Mizzou.

The only thing that really sticks out about them is their lack of football prowess, but they're a rare name brand in basketball. That and they're making strides in the football department, most likely to secure a spot in a major conference going forward.

The sweep at this point would be Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and the fourth is highly debatable: Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech.
That's 70+% of the current Big 12's value for 4 schools.
03-27-2020 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bear Catlett Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 551
Joined: Jan 2020
Reputation: 20
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-27-2020 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 02:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think this exercise sheds more light on Missouri's importance than anything else. Part of why I think the BIG was short-sighted to not take Missouri when they had the chance is the bridge it builds to Oklahoma. Without Missouri, Kansas makes zero sense to the SEC in terms of culture. If Missouri were in the BIG right now, we would expect Kansas to the BIG with Oklahoma making reasonable sense.

With Missouri in the SEC, Oklahoma to the BIG makes little geographical sense, and Kansas at least makes some sense. I agree that Texas to the BIG makes little sense. Texas as an Independent only playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year in only football? Fine, but they make no sense as a BIG full conference member. I think the SEC backed into it, but taking Missouri was a good strategic move for the long game. In the short game, we need Missouri to start producing their revenue potential, but that is a whole other thread...

I do think the SEC backed into it to some degree, but they made a play for Oklahoma back then. It just didn't work because they wanted Oklahoma State to come with them.

I know most don't agree with me, but Kansas seems like a natural fit. They are by no means Southern culturally, I agree, but with the way the country has evolved the last few decades; I think a flagship in a heartland state that doesn't bend over backwards for pro sports is pretty well in keeping with the SEC model. Actually, I'd argue they fit better than Missouri does and that's not a knock on Mizzou.

The only thing that really sticks out about them is their lack of football prowess, but they're a rare name brand in basketball. That and they're making strides in the football department, most likely to secure a spot in a major conference going forward.

The sweep at this point would be Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and the fourth is highly debatable: Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech.
That's 70+% of the current Big 12's value for 4 schools.

Why would a 4th school have to be a B12? Sounds a little redundant to me.

Why not think outside the box and look somewhere else? There are others out there that are worthy and willing but are not B12 little brothers.

I'm going to say another thing. I don't think anyone from the ACC would be in play. I think they all locked arms together on the last realignment cycle.
03-28-2020 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,723
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 200
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-28-2020 02:04 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 02:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think this exercise sheds more light on Missouri's importance than anything else. Part of why I think the BIG was short-sighted to not take Missouri when they had the chance is the bridge it builds to Oklahoma. Without Missouri, Kansas makes zero sense to the SEC in terms of culture. If Missouri were in the BIG right now, we would expect Kansas to the BIG with Oklahoma making reasonable sense.

With Missouri in the SEC, Oklahoma to the BIG makes little geographical sense, and Kansas at least makes some sense. I agree that Texas to the BIG makes little sense. Texas as an Independent only playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year in only football? Fine, but they make no sense as a BIG full conference member. I think the SEC backed into it, but taking Missouri was a good strategic move for the long game. In the short game, we need Missouri to start producing their revenue potential, but that is a whole other thread...

I do think the SEC backed into it to some degree, but they made a play for Oklahoma back then. It just didn't work because they wanted Oklahoma State to come with them.

I know most don't agree with me, but Kansas seems like a natural fit. They are by no means Southern culturally, I agree, but with the way the country has evolved the last few decades; I think a flagship in a heartland state that doesn't bend over backwards for pro sports is pretty well in keeping with the SEC model. Actually, I'd argue they fit better than Missouri does and that's not a knock on Mizzou.

The only thing that really sticks out about them is their lack of football prowess, but they're a rare name brand in basketball. That and they're making strides in the football department, most likely to secure a spot in a major conference going forward.

The sweep at this point would be Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and the fourth is highly debatable: Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech.
That's 70+% of the current Big 12's value for 4 schools.

Why would a 4th school have to be a B12? Sounds a little redundant to me.

Why not think outside the box and look somewhere else? There are others out there that are worthy and willing but are not B12 little brothers.

I'm going to say another thing. I don't think anyone from the ACC would be in play. I think they all locked arms together on the last realignment cycle.

Is that a subtle pitch for Cincinnati? 03-wink

In the scenario we're talking about, taking a 4th school from the Big 12 might not technically be a necessity. If their big 3 are full and clear from having to take their little brothers then I can't necessarily say I disagree with you.

Texas would give us everything we want from that state when combined with Texas A&M. Oklahoma even gives us a little more at that along with the national cache. Kansas is a good solid brand and I think ESPN would prefer to have them under greater control anyway.

The 4th school could be debatable at that point if all options are open to us except ACC schools.

I wouldn't object to Cincinnati in that scenario being the 4th school. It's true that a school like UC depends heavily on athletic subsidies, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that the other Big 12 schools would be in the same boat if they didn't have some true heavy hitters to up their average value. In other words, if you separate out Texas Tech or Iowa State or Oklahoma State from the big dogs then could they duplicate their economic performance? Would they be the ones relying on subsidies in that scenario? Hard to say, I think, but it's worth considering.
03-28-2020 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,116
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2429
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-28-2020 02:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 02:04 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 02:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think this exercise sheds more light on Missouri's importance than anything else. Part of why I think the BIG was short-sighted to not take Missouri when they had the chance is the bridge it builds to Oklahoma. Without Missouri, Kansas makes zero sense to the SEC in terms of culture. If Missouri were in the BIG right now, we would expect Kansas to the BIG with Oklahoma making reasonable sense.

With Missouri in the SEC, Oklahoma to the BIG makes little geographical sense, and Kansas at least makes some sense. I agree that Texas to the BIG makes little sense. Texas as an Independent only playing Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year in only football? Fine, but they make no sense as a BIG full conference member. I think the SEC backed into it, but taking Missouri was a good strategic move for the long game. In the short game, we need Missouri to start producing their revenue potential, but that is a whole other thread...

I do think the SEC backed into it to some degree, but they made a play for Oklahoma back then. It just didn't work because they wanted Oklahoma State to come with them.

I know most don't agree with me, but Kansas seems like a natural fit. They are by no means Southern culturally, I agree, but with the way the country has evolved the last few decades; I think a flagship in a heartland state that doesn't bend over backwards for pro sports is pretty well in keeping with the SEC model. Actually, I'd argue they fit better than Missouri does and that's not a knock on Mizzou.

The only thing that really sticks out about them is their lack of football prowess, but they're a rare name brand in basketball. That and they're making strides in the football department, most likely to secure a spot in a major conference going forward.

The sweep at this point would be Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and the fourth is highly debatable: Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech.
That's 70+% of the current Big 12's value for 4 schools.

Why would a 4th school have to be a B12? Sounds a little redundant to me.

Why not think outside the box and look somewhere else? There are others out there that are worthy and willing but are not B12 little brothers.

I'm going to say another thing. I don't think anyone from the ACC would be in play. I think they all locked arms together on the last realignment cycle.

Is that a subtle pitch for Cincinnati? 03-wink

In the scenario we're talking about, taking a 4th school from the Big 12 might not technically be a necessity. If their big 3 are full and clear from having to take their little brothers then I can't necessarily say I disagree with you.

Texas would give us everything we want from that state when combined with Texas A&M. Oklahoma even gives us a little more at that along with the national cache. Kansas is a good solid brand and I think ESPN would prefer to have them under greater control anyway.

The 4th school could be debatable at that point if all options are open to us except ACC schools.

I wouldn't object to Cincinnati in that scenario being the 4th school. It's true that a school like UC depends heavily on athletic subsidies, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that the other Big 12 schools would be in the same boat if they didn't have some true heavy hitters to up their average value. In other words, if you separate out Texas Tech or Iowa State or Oklahoma State from the big dogs then could they duplicate their economic performance? Would they be the ones relying on subsidies in that scenario? Hard to say, I think, but it's worth considering.

Out of the Box #4: South Florida
03-28-2020 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,949
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-28-2020 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 02:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 02:04 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I do think the SEC backed into it to some degree, but they made a play for Oklahoma back then. It just didn't work because they wanted Oklahoma State to come with them.

I know most don't agree with me, but Kansas seems like a natural fit. They are by no means Southern culturally, I agree, but with the way the country has evolved the last few decades; I think a flagship in a heartland state that doesn't bend over backwards for pro sports is pretty well in keeping with the SEC model. Actually, I'd argue they fit better than Missouri does and that's not a knock on Mizzou.

The only thing that really sticks out about them is their lack of football prowess, but they're a rare name brand in basketball. That and they're making strides in the football department, most likely to secure a spot in a major conference going forward.

The sweep at this point would be Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and the fourth is highly debatable: Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech.
That's 70+% of the current Big 12's value for 4 schools.

Why would a 4th school have to be a B12? Sounds a little redundant to me.

Why not think outside the box and look somewhere else? There are others out there that are worthy and willing but are not B12 little brothers.

I'm going to say another thing. I don't think anyone from the ACC would be in play. I think they all locked arms together on the last realignment cycle.

Is that a subtle pitch for Cincinnati? 03-wink

In the scenario we're talking about, taking a 4th school from the Big 12 might not technically be a necessity. If their big 3 are full and clear from having to take their little brothers then I can't necessarily say I disagree with you.

Texas would give us everything we want from that state when combined with Texas A&M. Oklahoma even gives us a little more at that along with the national cache. Kansas is a good solid brand and I think ESPN would prefer to have them under greater control anyway.

The 4th school could be debatable at that point if all options are open to us except ACC schools.

I wouldn't object to Cincinnati in that scenario being the 4th school. It's true that a school like UC depends heavily on athletic subsidies, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that the other Big 12 schools would be in the same boat if they didn't have some true heavy hitters to up their average value. In other words, if you separate out Texas Tech or Iowa State or Oklahoma State from the big dogs then could they duplicate their economic performance? Would they be the ones relying on subsidies in that scenario? Hard to say, I think, but it's worth considering.

Out of the Box #4: South Florida

Out of the Box #4: East Carolina ???
03-28-2020 07:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,116
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2429
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-28-2020 07:18 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 02:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 02:04 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  
(03-27-2020 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The sweep at this point would be Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and the fourth is highly debatable: Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech.
That's 70+% of the current Big 12's value for 4 schools.

Why would a 4th school have to be a B12? Sounds a little redundant to me.

Why not think outside the box and look somewhere else? There are others out there that are worthy and willing but are not B12 little brothers.

I'm going to say another thing. I don't think anyone from the ACC would be in play. I think they all locked arms together on the last realignment cycle.

Is that a subtle pitch for Cincinnati? 03-wink

In the scenario we're talking about, taking a 4th school from the Big 12 might not technically be a necessity. If their big 3 are full and clear from having to take their little brothers then I can't necessarily say I disagree with you.

Texas would give us everything we want from that state when combined with Texas A&M. Oklahoma even gives us a little more at that along with the national cache. Kansas is a good solid brand and I think ESPN would prefer to have them under greater control anyway.

The 4th school could be debatable at that point if all options are open to us except ACC schools.

I wouldn't object to Cincinnati in that scenario being the 4th school. It's true that a school like UC depends heavily on athletic subsidies, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that the other Big 12 schools would be in the same boat if they didn't have some true heavy hitters to up their average value. In other words, if you separate out Texas Tech or Iowa State or Oklahoma State from the big dogs then could they duplicate their economic performance? Would they be the ones relying on subsidies in that scenario? Hard to say, I think, but it's worth considering.

Out of the Box #4: South Florida

Out of the Box #4: East Carolina ???

Nope! Their #5 in a state of 10 million. South Florida is #4 in a state of over 20 million and is a rising star in research from a region of Florida (Gulf coast middle of the State with reach into South Florida) that the SEC truly needs a representative from. If we gained F.S.U. we simply own the panhandle which we have a large part of already and Gainesville and Tallahassee are about an hour apart. If we picked up Miami we are truly in the deepest part of South Florida which isn't an SEC cultural fit. South Florida is perfectly positioned to be an excellent 2nd Florida school for the SEC. So if we are going to play promote the G5 South Florida is at the top of the list for the SEC.

What a wonderful SEC that would make:

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Central: Alabama, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St.,, Tennessee
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, S.Carolina, , S. Florida, Vanderbilt
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2020 07:51 PM by JRsec.)
03-28-2020 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,723
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 200
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
(03-28-2020 07:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 07:18 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 02:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-28-2020 02:04 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Why would a 4th school have to be a B12? Sounds a little redundant to me.

Why not think outside the box and look somewhere else? There are others out there that are worthy and willing but are not B12 little brothers.

I'm going to say another thing. I don't think anyone from the ACC would be in play. I think they all locked arms together on the last realignment cycle.

Is that a subtle pitch for Cincinnati? 03-wink

In the scenario we're talking about, taking a 4th school from the Big 12 might not technically be a necessity. If their big 3 are full and clear from having to take their little brothers then I can't necessarily say I disagree with you.

Texas would give us everything we want from that state when combined with Texas A&M. Oklahoma even gives us a little more at that along with the national cache. Kansas is a good solid brand and I think ESPN would prefer to have them under greater control anyway.

The 4th school could be debatable at that point if all options are open to us except ACC schools.

I wouldn't object to Cincinnati in that scenario being the 4th school. It's true that a school like UC depends heavily on athletic subsidies, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that the other Big 12 schools would be in the same boat if they didn't have some true heavy hitters to up their average value. In other words, if you separate out Texas Tech or Iowa State or Oklahoma State from the big dogs then could they duplicate their economic performance? Would they be the ones relying on subsidies in that scenario? Hard to say, I think, but it's worth considering.

Out of the Box #4: South Florida

Out of the Box #4: East Carolina ???

Nope! Their #5 in a state of 10 million. South Florida is #4 in a state of over 20 million and is a rising star in research from a region of Florida (Gulf coast middle of the State with reach into South Florida) that the SEC truly needs a representative from. If we gained F.S.U. we simply own the panhandle which we have a large part of already and Gainesville and Tallahassee are about an hour apart. If we picked up Miami we are truly in the deepest part of South Florida which isn't an SEC cultural fit. South Florida is perfectly positioned to be an excellent 2nd Florida school for the SEC. So if we are going to play promote the G5 South Florida is at the top of the list for the SEC.

What a wonderful SEC that would make:

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Central: Alabama, Kentucky, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St.,, Tennessee
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, S.Carolina, , S. Florida, Vanderbilt

South Florida would be the best strategic add if we're looking at current G5 schools. I would agree.

Obviously, you'd have to put Florida and USF in the same division one way or the other. I also think you schedule their game early in the season, right around the same time that Florida State and Miami typically play. The latter is one of the ACC's few strong rivalries and heck...why should they get most of the attention in FL?
03-28-2020 10:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,661
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #13
RE: Strategy - Force the ACC to choose
My brother and I drove a good bit of the South Florida campus when we visited Tampa in 2007. One word: massive. I sometimes wonder if the average fan of college sports realizes USF's significance (academics, enrollment, campus acreage). The school's endowment ($440M) is lower than MissState's ($505M), which is the SEC's lowest if I'm not mistaken. But that is still a very respectable endowment for a young school (USF was founded in 1956) that is not as prestigious as an Ivy or a member of a power league. The overall athletics program is very respectable.

There is no doubt ... USF is a sleeping giant.

It would be very interesting to see how USF would fare in the SEC. I feel it would do well.
03-29-2020 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.