(11-30-2020 08:27 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 06:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-29-2020 08:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2020 08:10 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-29-2020 07:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  Nobody.
But no other in the ACC school has bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the Tigers.

Tell you what, we in the Big Ten will give you Nebraska for Florida State. One washed up football program for another. We'll at least have the Florida market.

Why trade you are already on equal footing. The Big 10 has one contender, Ohio State. The ACC has one contender, Clemson. The ACC has hopes for Notre Dame, the Big 10 doesn't. After that both conferences have half of their membership that can't or won't really try to compete and both have 4 or 5 more that try hard to make it interesting.

What you are really saying with your offer is that the Big 10's only chance to have future relevance is to get a Southern team in a recruit rich state. That's true. And that is what Iowa, Ohio State and Penn State are gong to have to think about in the not too distant future. All the ACC has to do is to commit more solidly to the game. The Big 10 literally has to find a way into the South.

So while I find truth in you situation why should the ACC trade? I can't think of a single good reason!

The truth is that the Big 12 has only one contender, Oklahoma, while the PAC unfortunately has none.
The SEC has Alabama, but also has a host of teams, led by Georgia, Florida and LSU poised to knock the Tide off of their pedestal. Soon Texas A&M will be added to that list. All of the SEC schools mentioned have the biggest stadiums and athletic departments focused on football championships. The other "big stadium" school in the SEC is Tennessee and they are also focused, but have run into the same problem that the B1G has. They have to go further south to find enough elite football talent to compete.

Interestingly Florida State only lacks money to be competitive on the national stage which the ACC doesn't provide in sufficient quantity, and the SEC can.
Clemson has been able be successful by packaging themselves as a SEC alternative, which is a lesson that could benefit Tennessee.

I'm not sure how the bolded works with your underlined assertion.

The point is that Tennessee could and would find greater success in the ACC than they ever will have again in the SEC.
I'm not advocating a swap of Florida State for Tennessee, maybe I should.
Natural barriers (mountains) divided the old Southern Conference on an east-west axis. Now that divide is rotating (especially for football) to a more north-south basis because of recruiting and where top level high school football is played.

This thread has evolved into "who can compete with who in which conference".

Of the three biggest conferences (we don't need to discuss the western crap), each one has been dominated by one team. The Big Ten has been pretty much Ohio State (2014-19: 48-4, four conference championships in six years), the ACC by Clemson (2014-19, 44-4, five championships in six years), the SEC by Alabama (2012-19, 57-7, five championships in eight years). Both OSU and Clemson have won over 90% of their conference games since their conferences expanded, Alabama has "only" won 89% over 8 years since A&M and Mizzou were added. Is anyone really "competing" with these three schools? LSU got 'Bama and won the national championship last year. They've also beaten them one time in their last eight tries. The only team that has had some success recently vs Alabama is their in state rivals (three wins since 2013) and they have a tough time beating everyone else as they are just 33-31 overall in the SEC between 2012-19. In the Big Ten, Penn State is 1-8 in their last 9 vs. Ohio State and Michigan ... yeah we all know. If the criteria for staying in a conference is who could compete for the conference championship, would the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC each be conferences of one member each?

OU is Clearly the dominant player in the Big 12..!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk