(10-20-2020 01:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Understanding the old Southern Conference is key to understanding what is possible between the SEC and the ACC or B12.

Here's a 30 school recreation:

North - ND, Louisville, Ky, Pitt, UVa, VT
East - UNC, NCSU, WF, Duke, Clemson, SC
South - Vandy, Bama, Auburn, TN, Georgia, GT
Gulf - LSU, MSU, Ole Miss, UF, Miami, FSU
West - Arkansas, Mizzou, Kansas, OU, TAMU, Texas

5 division champions are met by 3 wild cards in an 8 school playoff. Only 16 of the thirty make the basketball playoff.

The STATES left out are Mass, NY, West Va., and Iowa. The schools left out are BC, Syracuse, West Va, Iowa State, K-State, TT, TCU, Baylor, and Ok State.

The bolded schools were Southern Conference schools at the time of the split in 1933. The schools in blue were not playing football at the major level at the time.

Culturally every school in the above 30 has either a southern fan base, southern alumni base, is culturally southern, or has moved that way over the last 50 years. Pitt being in Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame being Catholic in Indiana, and Kansas all have some southern cultural ideations be it how they relate to football, politics, social structure, etc., etc. I think that social and cultural fit matters.

The ACC + SEC+ Big 12 total 39 schools. You are leaving out 9. How are you planning on making them go away?
Don't get me wrong, I think BC and Syracuse are a millstone around the ACC's neck, but you can't just say shoo!

(10-20-2020 01:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 12:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 10:33 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 08:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Synopsis: the SEC couldn't get the ACC teams they wanted so they took 2 from the Big XII.

I do recall talk around that time (2011) about the SEC wanting VT and NC State. I also recall being dumbfounded by that, as IMO neither school would add anything worth mentioning to the SEC - then or now. I recall backers of getting NC State trying to convince me how valuable it is, that it is a land/space/air grant university or something, and me laughing that the SEC has never settled for having the #3 most valuable school in any state and thus wouldn't be interested in doing so in North Carolina.

Surely, Texas AM is far more valuable than VT or NC State (no shame in that, btw, as TAMU is extremely valuable), probably more valuable than both put together, so if the SEC really did regard VT and NCST as their first choices, and had to settle for Texas AM and Missouri because VT and NC State were not interested, then the SEC dodged a bullet, because it got the better twosome anyway, even with meh Missouri in the equation.

The failed expansion scenario explained by JRSEC was not an either / or (TAMU & MO / VT & NC St) expansion...it was a 16 team SEC with all four additions.

It’s hard to project how schools would fit into a new conference. My guess would be that NC State’s athletic peers in the SEC are somewhere between SCar and Kentucky...except that the state of North Carolina provides significantly better demographics; athletic peers to VT are more difficult, probably UT and Auburn provide the top end value.

When SEC expansion to 16 teams was off the table and TAMU was already set, the SEC still could have a theoretical choice for a 14th school. Given the choice of the North Carolina, Virginia or Missouri markets, there is no doubt in my mind that schools in North Carolina or Virginia have significantly more potential and cultural fit into the SEC. As an ACC fan, I’m ecstatic that no one from the ACC bit on potential realignment...and that the University of Missouri wanted to jump.

About the bolded parts ..... Agree, predicting fit is always difficult .... IMO, Missouri, NC State, and VT were "pick your meh" options. I don't think any of them would bring much to the table in the SEC. No question, North Carolina is a much better market than Missouri. But, with the ACC still having Duke and UNC and Wake, the SEC would have only a small presence there in that sense.

No, if NC State were in the SEC, the SEC would not have a small presence in NC. You don't seem to understand the geography of NC. The Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville DMA is a already a Tennessee, Clemson, UNC, SC, UGa market. Charlotte's DMA runs the width of the state from Boone to Wadesboro. The core of the NC State fan base is in Central and Eastern NC. But the main assumption is NC State's freedom from UNC. UNC put the kibosh on that if UNC lets NC State go either to the B10 or SEC it further reduces it's athletic control over the area. The Chancellor and Board of Trustees that makes such a move will find themselves removed and replaces within 18 months of the deed. But that's just one part of Carolina's view. The other is that they, UVa, and Duke do not want to compete athletically against Texas or Oklahoma. Texas because of unlimited money. OU because of the false perception that somehow OU cheats more and better than the blue three.

You pack a lot of stuff in here so let me address what I can tease out.

1) I do think I understand NC geography. I do know that there are parts of NC where there is interest in SEC football as it is. But I do not think NC State joining the SEC would add much. NC is culturally, overall, not an SEC athletic state. Casual NC sports fans are not going to become more interested in the SEC. These fans are already well aware of the SEC, and they either have interest or they don't, and most don't. In fact, we might even expect a backlash - NC State's fan base does not want to leave the ACC.

2) I get the part about NCST playing second-fiddle to UNC politically and wanting to escape that yolk. It is very similar to what motivated TAMU to leave the Big 12, it was tired of being in Texas's shadow.

That's one reason why UNC will never leave the ACC. It is like Texas in the Big 12, the center of the ACC universe. And it likes having that power and control. UNC basically runs the ACC, it is the sun around which the other schools orbit. It doesn't *always* get its way, after Maryland left Clemson and FSU rattled some sabres about the need to replace them with a football school, and UNC read the temperature in the room and gave in to Louisville, but basically it runs the show.

And unlike Texas, which will be an 800 pound gorilla no matter where it goes, if UNC ever joins the SEC or B1G it immediately loses that, it would just be one of many powerful schools. So UNC will fly the ACC flag to the very last rampart, if it comes to that.

(10-20-2020 11:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 04:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There were 2 tense months after the announcement of TAMU before we all learned that Missouri was going to the SEC too and that WVU’s consolation prize was a spot in the Big 12. (TCU had already been announced as TAMU’s replacement)

Somewhere in between the ACC tried to bolster their numbers by inviting Syracuse and Pitt.

I’m still shocked that no one in the ACC broke ranks and pursued the SEC.

State politics would have made it hard for VT, UVA, NC St, or UNC to make that move without a package deal in place but I’m still shocked that Florida St, Clemson, GT, or Miami didn’t make an attempt to jump—particularly Florida St and Clemson who are football first schools and have the feel of an SEC institution far more than AAU midwestern state land grant Missouri.

I’ve read speculation that the SEC needed two new markets to get their media rights reopened for negotiation but surely hauling in two big fish would have been grounds to bring that up. Certainly ESPN and CBS, if faced with an ultimatum of let us bring in Florida St and up our tv contract or we’re going to add some random school and you’re still going to have to up the contract, would have agreed to talk dollars with that consortium of high value athletic programs.

So what gives? Was their truly unwavering love of conference by all 12 ACC schools (well, maybe not so much love from Maryland)?

Did the SEC back down from a media rights dispute?

Did someone in the SEC really love Missouri and/or wanted to stick it to the Big Ten?

————

To me, the way things would have played out was that Florida St would have won the SEC lottery, WVU or USF replaces them in the ACC, and then when Rutgers and Maryland get picked up by the Big Ten then the loser for FSU’s spot face off against Louisville for Maryland’s spot.

Or maybe things open wide up and even more expansion occurs.

FSU wanted to leave the ACC. No invitation from the SEC. Clemson knew it’s not getting an invitation. The SEC did have some interest in VT, but VT never wanted to leave the ACC. Miami does not fit well in the SEC.

I don’t think the whole truth ever emerged about FSU and the SEC, because you had boosters and some administrators wanting to leave the ACC while you had FSU’s president calling in Swofford to make hard sells on those people. Barron using sound bytes from public statements from SEC people, but nothing unique, new, or specific to them. Was it that the SEC really didn’t want FSU, or that FSU’s president went to great lengths to ensure the focus was staying in the ACC, including simply not making calls?

IIRC, there were two of these Swofford sell meetings, but only FSU was ever confirmed? Allegedly there was one in VA, but I’ve heard things over the years that it was UVA-Big Ten, VT-SEC, or NCSU-SEC (not sure why it was done in VA).

The only real smoke and fire from that time truly was the FSU and UMD vote against the higher buy-out/exit fee. We know what happened as a result of that for both: their stories are known. The other stuff, from other obscure meetings to rumor-mill stuff...not much of that to ever really come front and present. Kinda like that one school who applied to the Big Ten and was told “no” on the basis of academic fit. UConn? FSU? Just rumors.

(10-20-2020 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 08:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Synopsis: the SEC couldn't get the ACC teams they wanted so they took 2 from the Big XII.

I do recall talk around that time (2011) about the SEC wanting VT and NC State. I also recall being dumbfounded by that, as IMO neither school would add anything worth mentioning to the SEC - then or now. I recall backers of getting NC State trying to convince me how valuable it is, that it is a land/space/air grant university or something, and me laughing that the SEC has never settled for having the #3 most valuable school in any state and thus wouldn't be interested in doing so in North Carolina.

Surely, Texas AM is far more valuable than VT or NC State (no shame in that, btw, as TAMU is extremely valuable), probably more valuable than both put together, so if the SEC really did regard VT and NCST as their first choices, and had to settle for Texas AM and Missouri because VT and NC State were not interested, then the SEC dodged a bullet, because it got the better twosome anyway, even with meh Missouri in the equation.

Let's put all of this to bed.

Qutoe from MR SEC (10-07-11).


#2 North Carolina-Total Score=28.5 (TV markets 16; Total State Population 10; Proximity 9; Fertile recruiting ground 11; Athletic Budgets 9; Football Stadium Size 13; Athletic Success 3; Academic fit 10; New Land Bonus -17.5; AAU Member Bonus -17.5; National Brand Bonus -17.5) note: lower the number the better. #1 Texas A&M -8, #3 Penn State -38; #4 Texas-40; #5 UVa. -52; #6 Oklahoma-69.5; #7 Duke-77.5; #8 Va. Tech-82.5; #9 Pitt-84; #10 Missouri-87; #11 Florida State-89.5.....NC State #15 -104.5.

realistic chances-Very Slim
Now we see why so many people believe the SEC's commissioner secretly dreams of a day when the Tar Heels will reconnect with their old Southern Conference partners. Is it a realistic dream? Only if Missouri joins the SEC to the West and the ACC someday destabilizes. At that point, Carolina might be able to run with partner Duke to a 16 team SEC. (Though even then it's doubtful that NC State could be left behind.) Maybe if 20-school conferences become the new norm.

(10-21-2020 07:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 08:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Synopsis: the SEC couldn't get the ACC teams they wanted so they took 2 from the Big XII.

I do recall talk around that time (2011) about the SEC wanting VT and NC State. I also recall being dumbfounded by that, as IMO neither school would add anything worth mentioning to the SEC - then or now. I recall backers of getting NC State trying to convince me how valuable it is, that it is a land/space/air grant university or something, and me laughing that the SEC has never settled for having the #3 most valuable school in any state and thus wouldn't be interested in doing so in North Carolina.

Surely, Texas AM is far more valuable than VT or NC State (no shame in that, btw, as TAMU is extremely valuable), probably more valuable than both put together, so if the SEC really did regard VT and NCST as their first choices, and had to settle for Texas AM and Missouri because VT and NC State were not interested, then the SEC dodged a bullet, because it got the better twosome anyway, even with meh Missouri in the equation.

Let's put all of this to bed.

Qutoe from MR SEC (10-07-11).


#2 North Carolina-Total Score=28.5 (TV markets 16; Total State Population 10; Proximity 9; Fertile recruiting ground 11; Athletic Budgets 9; Football Stadium Size 13; Athletic Success 3; Academic fit 10; New Land Bonus -17.5; AAU Member Bonus -17.5; National Brand Bonus -17.5) note: lower the number the better. #1 Texas A&M -8, #3 Penn State -38; #4 Texas-40; #5 UVa. -52; #6 Oklahoma-69.5; #7 Duke-77.5; #8 Va. Tech-82.5; #9 Pitt-84; #10 Missouri-87; #11 Florida State-89.5.....NC State #15 -104.5.

realistic chances-Very Slim
Now we see why so many people believe the SEC's commissioner secretly dreams of a day when the Tar Heels will reconnect with their old Southern Conference partners. Is it a realistic dream? Only if Missouri joins the SEC to the West and the ACC someday destabilizes. At that point, Carolina might be able to run with partner Duke to a 16 team SEC. (Though even then it's doubtful that NC State could be left behind.) Maybe if 20-school conferences become the new norm.

Sorry, but I can't make sense of those jumbled numbers.

Anyway, if your point is that UNC would be a valuable addition to the SEC, well of course they would be, they'd be a valuable addition to the B1G as well. UNC is a very valuable flagship university on all dimensions.

If the SEC could expand right now with two more schools, there's zero doubt that the two best would be #1 Texas and #2 North Carolina. But as I've said, North Carolina has zero interest in leaving the ACC, where it is the undisputed Kingpin, unless the house is literally burning down around it. And if the house was burning down around it and it realized it HAD to leave, the SEC would be the last place it would want to go. UNC's sense of academic and cultural superiority over the SEC (with a few notable exceptions - e.g. Georgia, Florida, Vanderbilt) is a mirage, but it is a mirage that is ingrained in its organizational culture, so in practice, it is very real.

My point was that NC State offers the SEC very little, now or in 2011, so I've never understood why *some* in the SEC have floated their name over the years as a desirable target.

(10-20-2020 03:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Without the subscription model, I don't think going to 14 pays. Certainly not with Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri and probably not with A&M. So there will be some re-thinking as the conference networks lose value.

FWIW, I've never bought in to the subscription model, at least not in its most robust form. E.g., back in 2012 when the subscription model was at its apex, the Big East was falling apart and the issue was who we should backfill with, the dominant thought among BEast fans was to add "markets", as in, "we can keep our TV value high, at AQ level, by adding schools in Big Markets. TV will pay for Markets".

At that time, I scoffed at that, and would make snide comments about how fanciful it was to believe that Temple "brought" the Philly market or that Houston "brought" the Houston market, or whatever. I emphasized that it was the brand value of the school that mattered, and that the mere presence in a market didn't mean there was much actual interest in that school's athletics there. Even when the most common retort was offered - "well what about Maryland and Rutgers? The B1G is obviously adding them just to gain access to their rich markets"? I would reply with "well, you don't see the B1G adding Fordham and George Mason, do you? Those schools are in those same markets, but they lack brand value, whereas Maryland and Rutgers have brand presence in those markets".

But, I am also not sold on any paradigm shifts that allegedly come from a transition from cable subscriptions to streaming. Texas AM is very valuable to the SEC under either model, because Texas AM is a huge, rich university with a massive fan base and thus a big following. They are a nationally prominent athletic brand.

So to me, Brand Value has always been the name of the game, and that doesn't change whether the model is cable subscriptions or streaming. Also, too much is made of the "transition", as cable subscriptions are still extremely lucrative in athletics, way moreso than streaming, and is likely to remain that way for some time. It's a slow transition, it's not a drop-off-a-cliff thing like the Iphone and Android killing Blackberry in 2010-2011.

To me, the enduring features are, on the side of the schools and conferences, brand value of the schools, and on the media company side, ownership of media rights. Regardless of the format, people will want to watch college football and ESPN and FOX and CBS will be able to charge them to do so. Just as record companies are currently making more money than ever under the Spotify et al. streaming model of music. You no longer hear talk of the Good Old Days of selling CDs for $15 a pop back in the 80s and 90s. These are now the Good Old Days. Yes, they went through a very lean 12 years, from around 2000 to 2012, because of piracy, but that's not something ESPN etc. face. Yes, there will be a weaning-period, some bumps in transition - we're seeing it now with ESPN - of declining revenues, but hyperbolic talk of "ESPN is a money-loser" is just that, hyperbole.

I agree UNC will stay in the ACC unless they really have no other choice or unless they get an offer they can't refuse. I think they can be had easier than Texas can be.

It's clear to me the SEC would want them but it's also clear the Big Ten would want them. The link below has the actual news about Maryland and Rutgers joining but rumors about North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia Tech.
https://www.landgrantholyland.com/2012/1...he-big-ten

Former commissioner Jim Delany was a UNC alum. I have a feeling the chances of Carolina going to the B1G were better back then than now. I would guess if North Carolina had a choice between the SEC or Big Ten they would choose the Big Ten as would Virginia, Duke, and most of the northern ACC schools including Notre Dame (they'd resist joining both). I think Virginia Tech and NC State would prefer the Big Ten although they'd be pretty far down the B1G's list.

(10-21-2020 09:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Former commissioner Jim Delany was a UNC alum. I have a feeling the chances of Carolina going to the B1G were better back then than now. I would guess if North Carolina had a choice between the SEC or Big Ten they would choose the Big Ten as would Virginia, Duke, and most of the northern ACC schools including Notre Dame (they'd resist joining both). I think Virginia Tech and NC State would prefer the Big Ten although they'd be pretty far down the B1G's list.

Agreed. If the ACC collapsed, all of the ACC schools would prefer the B1G save for FSU, Clemson and Miami.

FSU and Clemson would prefer the SEC. Miami would prefer independence.

But IMO, the ACC is as stable as it has been in a long while. To me, the odds of any movement out of the ACC are very slim this decade.

(10-21-2020 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 09:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Former commissioner Jim Delany was a UNC alum. I have a feeling the chances of Carolina going to the B1G were better back then than now. I would guess if North Carolina had a choice between the SEC or Big Ten they would choose the Big Ten as would Virginia, Duke, and most of the northern ACC schools including Notre Dame (they'd resist joining both). I think Virginia Tech and NC State would prefer the Big Ten although they'd be pretty far down the B1G's list.

Agreed. If the ACC collapsed, all of the ACC schools would prefer the B1G save for FSU, Clemson and Miami.

FSU and Clemson would prefer the SEC. Miami would prefer independence.

But IMO, the ACC is as stable as it has been in a long while. To me, the odds of any movement out of the ACC are very slim this decade.

Yeah? I guess that's why UNC contacted the SEC after Maryland's departure to see if the worst happened would the SEC take both Duke and UNC, and why Cunningham's survey of donors preferences only yielded one who preferred the B1G. But please continue this fantasy.

I would claim just the opposite of your and Schmolik's assertion is true. That in 2010 UNC would have been much more likely to prefer the SEC and that today it would be the other way around.

I also disagree about all of the ACC school's preferring the Big 10 besides Miami, Clemson and Florida State. I think you would find Georgia Tech's preference to be for the SEC as well.

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 09:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Former commissioner Jim Delany was a UNC alum. I have a feeling the chances of Carolina going to the B1G were better back then than now. I would guess if North Carolina had a choice between the SEC or Big Ten they would choose the Big Ten as would Virginia, Duke, and most of the northern ACC schools including Notre Dame (they'd resist joining both). I think Virginia Tech and NC State would prefer the Big Ten although they'd be pretty far down the B1G's list.

Agreed. If the ACC collapsed, all of the ACC schools would prefer the B1G save for FSU, Clemson and Miami.

FSU and Clemson would prefer the SEC. Miami would prefer independence.

But IMO, the ACC is as stable as it has been in a long while. To me, the odds of any movement out of the ACC are very slim this decade.

Yeah? I guess that's why UNC contacted the SEC after Maryland's departure to see if the worst happened would the SEC take both Duke and UNC, and why Cunningham's survey of donors preferences only yielded one who preferred the B1G. But please continue this fantasy.

I would claim just the opposite of your and Schmolik's assertion is true. That in 2010 UNC would have been much more likely to prefer the SEC and that today it would be the other way around.

I also disagree about all of the ACC school's preferring the Big 10 besides Miami, Clemson and Florida State. I think you would find Georgia Tech's preference to be for the SEC as well.

Folks that don’t necessarily value athletics may prefer the BIG. For example a poll of academic faculty at universities may give a different result than boosters, AD administrators and/or student-athletes. It may depend on what constituency chancellors value.

(10-21-2020 12:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 09:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Former commissioner Jim Delany was a UNC alum. I have a feeling the chances of Carolina going to the B1G were better back then than now. I would guess if North Carolina had a choice between the SEC or Big Ten they would choose the Big Ten as would Virginia, Duke, and most of the northern ACC schools including Notre Dame (they'd resist joining both). I think Virginia Tech and NC State would prefer the Big Ten although they'd be pretty far down the B1G's list.

Agreed. If the ACC collapsed, all of the ACC schools would prefer the B1G save for FSU, Clemson and Miami.

FSU and Clemson would prefer the SEC. Miami would prefer independence.

But IMO, the ACC is as stable as it has been in a long while. To me, the odds of any movement out of the ACC are very slim this decade.

Yeah? I guess that's why UNC contacted the SEC after Maryland's departure to see if the worst happened would the SEC take both Duke and UNC, and why Cunningham's survey of donors preferences only yielded one who preferred the B1G. But please continue this fantasy.

I would claim just the opposite of your and Schmolik's assertion is true. That in 2010 UNC would have been much more likely to prefer the SEC and that today it would be the other way around.

I also disagree about all of the ACC school's preferring the Big 10 besides Miami, Clemson and Florida State. I think you would find Georgia Tech's preference to be for the SEC as well.

Folks that don’t necessarily value athletics may prefer the BIG. For example a poll of academic faculty at universities may give a different result than boosters, AD administrators and/or student-athletes. It may depend on what constituency chancellors value.

Of course faculty would prefer a resume' with Big 10 on it. But the factors are largely business in nature since academic associations exist between schools regardless of athletic conference affiliation, and be honest, all conferences were formed for athletic and academic associations between regional schools when highway transportation wasn't as developed and rail lines determined boundaries about as well as anything.

So yes, donors matter. Old rivals matter. Branding and control with the region matter. But most importantly the scope within which most enrollees matters, as does whether the school needs to broaden that scope.

The biases on this board are extremely revealing. Fan bias is present. We don't have but a few posters who have claimed to be donors so they are underrepresented. The bias of academia is very present and truly myopic. What we also have very few of are solid business people. And we have a lot of regional bias. Universities have Trustees who are usually donors, and usually local business people to help balance out the Academic bias and blind spots when it comes to major decisions. Coaches and AD's have input but are usually way down the line. When you have a president go rogue like Spanier did at F.S.U. you wind up with a somewhat divided house when a major decision is made without consensus.

As North Carolina politics change over time the biases of the donors and governing board likely will change as well. In 2010 it was much more regional in thinking than it likely is today. But if such a decision is ever made it will likely be by consensus of the Trustees/donors and the academics.

UVA and UNC pretty much have the 6 VA/NC schools permanently locked into the ACC.

Pitt, BC, and Cuse don’t really have anywhere to go unless ND decides its future is the Big Ten and they need a companion.

I don’t think Louisville has enough pull to merit an SEC invite so they are probably set in stone where they are.

GT is a fading athletic power that has a lot of academic prestige that I think is pretty committed to UNC/Duke/UVA.

Clemson and FSU are the brands that would fit in the SEC. at some point, I think they get tired of being behind in revenue and push for a change.

It’s hard what to make of Miami. They’re sort of their own identity. They just can’t seem to get back to their winning ways.

It will be interesting to see what the SEC and ESPN do. Is there a desire to consolidate more high dollar properties into the SEC family. (IMHO if you add Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Ok St, Clemson, and FSU to the SEC you’ve got one behemoth media property on your hands.)

If Disney truly is planning on selling off ESPN it will be very interesting to see what happens to it and what direction they take. Things could also take an interesting turn if the conferences start trying to monetize their inventory direct to the consumer.

(10-21-2020 01:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 12:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 09:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Former commissioner Jim Delany was a UNC alum. I have a feeling the chances of Carolina going to the B1G were better back then than now. I would guess if North Carolina had a choice between the SEC or Big Ten they would choose the Big Ten as would Virginia, Duke, and most of the northern ACC schools including Notre Dame (they'd resist joining both). I think Virginia Tech and NC State would prefer the Big Ten although they'd be pretty far down the B1G's list.

Agreed. If the ACC collapsed, all of the ACC schools would prefer the B1G save for FSU, Clemson and Miami.

FSU and Clemson would prefer the SEC. Miami would prefer independence.

But IMO, the ACC is as stable as it has been in a long while. To me, the odds of any movement out of the ACC are very slim this decade.

Yeah? I guess that's why UNC contacted the SEC after Maryland's departure to see if the worst happened would the SEC take both Duke and UNC, and why Cunningham's survey of donors preferences only yielded one who preferred the B1G. But please continue this fantasy.

I would claim just the opposite of your and Schmolik's assertion is true. That in 2010 UNC would have been much more likely to prefer the SEC and that today it would be the other way around.

I also disagree about all of the ACC school's preferring the Big 10 besides Miami, Clemson and Florida State. I think you would find Georgia Tech's preference to be for the SEC as well.

Folks that don’t necessarily value athletics may prefer the BIG. For example a poll of academic faculty at universities may give a different result than boosters, AD administrators and/or student-athletes. It may depend on what constituency chancellors value.

Of course faculty would prefer a resume' with Big 10 on it. But the factors are largely business in nature since academic associations exist between schools regardless of athletic conference affiliation, and be honest, all conferences were formed for athletic and academic associations between regional schools when highway transportation wasn't as developed and rail lines determined boundaries about as well as anything.

So yes, donors matter. Old rivals matter. Branding and control with the region matter. But most importantly the scope within which most enrollees matters, as does whether the school needs to broaden that scope.

The biases on this board are extremely revealing. Fan bias is present. We don't have but a few posters who have claimed to be donors so they are underrepresented. The bias of academia is very present and truly myopic. What we also have very few of are solid business people. And we have a lot of regional bias. Universities have Trustees who are usually donors, and usually local business people to help balance out the Academic bias and blind spots when it comes to major decisions. Coaches and AD's have input but are usually way down the line. When you have a president go rogue like Spanier did at F.S.U. you wind up with a somewhat divided house when a major decision is made without consensus.

As North Carolina politics change over time the biases of the donors and governing board likely will change as well. In 2010 it was much more regional in thinking than it likely is today. But if such a decision is ever made it will likely be by consensus of the Trustees/donors and the academics.

Completely agree with your assessment (especially on preferences of southern schools)...was merely pointing-out that faculty sometimes don’t care about the well-being of athletics.

(10-21-2020 01:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 12:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Agreed. If the ACC collapsed, all of the ACC schools would prefer the B1G save for FSU, Clemson and Miami.

FSU and Clemson would prefer the SEC. Miami would prefer independence.

But IMO, the ACC is as stable as it has been in a long while. To me, the odds of any movement out of the ACC are very slim this decade.

Yeah? I guess that's why UNC contacted the SEC after Maryland's departure to see if the worst happened would the SEC take both Duke and UNC, and why Cunningham's survey of donors preferences only yielded one who preferred the B1G. But please continue this fantasy.

I would claim just the opposite of your and Schmolik's assertion is true. That in 2010 UNC would have been much more likely to prefer the SEC and that today it would be the other way around.

I also disagree about all of the ACC school's preferring the Big 10 besides Miami, Clemson and Florida State. I think you would find Georgia Tech's preference to be for the SEC as well.

Folks that don’t necessarily value athletics may prefer the BIG. For example a poll of academic faculty at universities may give a different result than boosters, AD administrators and/or student-athletes. It may depend on what constituency chancellors value.

Of course faculty would prefer a resume' with Big 10 on it. But the factors are largely business in nature since academic associations exist between schools regardless of athletic conference affiliation, and be honest, all conferences were formed for athletic and academic associations between regional schools when highway transportation wasn't as developed and rail lines determined boundaries about as well as anything.

So yes, donors matter. Old rivals matter. Branding and control with the region matter. But most importantly the scope within which most enrollees matters, as does whether the school needs to broaden that scope.

The biases on this board are extremely revealing. Fan bias is present. We don't have but a few posters who have claimed to be donors so they are underrepresented. The bias of academia is very present and truly myopic. What we also have very few of are solid business people. And we have a lot of regional bias. Universities have Trustees who are usually donors, and usually local business people to help balance out the Academic bias and blind spots when it comes to major decisions. Coaches and AD's have input but are usually way down the line. When you have a president go rogue like Spanier did at F.S.U. you wind up with a somewhat divided house when a major decision is made without consensus.

As North Carolina politics change over time the biases of the donors and governing board likely will change as well. In 2010 it was much more regional in thinking than it likely is today. But if such a decision is ever made it will likely be by consensus of the Trustees/donors and the academics.

Completely agree with your assessment (especially on preferences of southern schools)...was merely pointing-out that faculty sometimes don’t care about the well-being of athletics.

FYI - Spanier is the ex-PSU president who was charged in the Sandusky case (he was never at FSU). Eric Barron is the ex-FSU president that faced the major booster revolt who wanted to move athletics to the B12 (Barron is now at PSU).

(10-21-2020 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  UVA and UNC pretty much have the 6 VA/NC schools permanently locked into the ACC.

Pitt, BC, and Cuse don’t really have anywhere to go unless ND decides its future is the Big Ten and they need a companion.

I don’t think Louisville has enough pull to merit an SEC invite so they are probably set in stone where they are.

GT is a fading athletic power that has a lot of academic prestige that I think is pretty committed to UNC/Duke/UVA.

Clemson and FSU are the brands that would fit in the SEC. at some point, I think they get tired of being behind in revenue and push for a change.

It’s hard what to make of Miami. They’re sort of their own identity. They just can’t seem to get back to their winning ways.

It will be interesting to see what the SEC and ESPN do. Is there a desire to consolidate more high dollar properties into the SEC family. (IMHO if you add Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Ok St, Clemson, and FSU to the SEC you’ve got one behemoth media property on your hands.)

If Disney truly is planning on selling off ESPN it will be very interesting to see what happens to it and what direction they take. Things could also take an interesting turn if the conferences start trying to monetize their inventory direct to the consumer.

It would be short-sighted for schools like UT, OU, FSU and Clemson to believe that SEC media payouts is the be-all, end-all objective. Revenue and profits (value) can sometimes be greater by consistently winning, playing teams that fans demand and properly managing the AD. UT and OU have done impressive jobs managing their athletic departments. Clemson has, more recently, had an impressive run in football (great coach, great scheduling and outstanding results). I’m not convinced that moving athletic departments to the SEC (nor BIG) will automatically help efficient programs.

(10-21-2020 01:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 12:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yeah? I guess that's why UNC contacted the SEC after Maryland's departure to see if the worst happened would the SEC take both Duke and UNC, and why Cunningham's survey of donors preferences only yielded one who preferred the B1G. But please continue this fantasy.

I would claim just the opposite of your and Schmolik's assertion is true. That in 2010 UNC would have been much more likely to prefer the SEC and that today it would be the other way around.

I also disagree about all of the ACC school's preferring the Big 10 besides Miami, Clemson and Florida State. I think you would find Georgia Tech's preference to be for the SEC as well.

Folks that don’t necessarily value athletics may prefer the BIG. For example a poll of academic faculty at universities may give a different result than boosters, AD administrators and/or student-athletes. It may depend on what constituency chancellors value.

Of course faculty would prefer a resume' with Big 10 on it. But the factors are largely business in nature since academic associations exist between schools regardless of athletic conference affiliation, and be honest, all conferences were formed for athletic and academic associations between regional schools when highway transportation wasn't as developed and rail lines determined boundaries about as well as anything.

So yes, donors matter. Old rivals matter. Branding and control with the region matter. But most importantly the scope within which most enrollees matters, as does whether the school needs to broaden that scope.

The biases on this board are extremely revealing. Fan bias is present. We don't have but a few posters who have claimed to be donors so they are underrepresented. The bias of academia is very present and truly myopic. What we also have very few of are solid business people. And we have a lot of regional bias. Universities have Trustees who are usually donors, and usually local business people to help balance out the Academic bias and blind spots when it comes to major decisions. Coaches and AD's have input but are usually way down the line. When you have a president go rogue like Spanier did at F.S.U. you wind up with a somewhat divided house when a major decision is made without consensus.

As North Carolina politics change over time the biases of the donors and governing board likely will change as well. In 2010 it was much more regional in thinking than it likely is today. But if such a decision is ever made it will likely be by consensus of the Trustees/donors and the academics.

Completely agree with your assessment (especially on preferences of southern schools)...was merely pointing-out that faculty sometimes don’t care about the well-being of athletics.

FYI - Spanier is the ex-PSU president who was charged in the Sandusky case (he was never at FSU). Eric Barron is the ex-FSU president that faced the major booster revolt who wanted to move athletics to the B12 (Barron is now at PSU).

When you ae my age and go off of memory overlapping names coinciding in association with a common denominator leads to scheisse happens!

One thing you can't forget is there is money to be made in academic research to and it isn't peanuts. Don't discount the value of being in the Big Ten/Big Ten Academic Alliance. Not to mention if a non AAU school would ever want to join the AAU it may not hurt to have fellow conference members on your side.

(10-21-2020 02:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  One thing you can't forget is there is money to be made in academic research to and it isn't peanuts. Don't discount the value of being in the Big Ten/Big Ten Academic Alliance. Not to mention if a non AAU school would ever want to join the AAU it may not hurt to have fellow conference members on your side.

How is the BIG doing in convincing Johns Hopkins to join their CIC/Academic Alliance?

I remember the BIG offering membership to Johns Hopkins (the top academic research university in the US...in terms of research funding). The offer occurred 7 years ago when Johns Hopkins joined the BIG for lacrosse.

(10-21-2020 02:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  One thing you can't forget is there is money to be made in academic research to and it isn't peanuts. Don't discount the value of being in the Big Ten/Big Ten Academic Alliance. Not to mention if a non AAU school would ever want to join the AAU it may not hurt to have fellow conference members on your side.

The B1G has three schools in the top 20 re: research dollars. BTW the ACC also has three schools in the top 20.

What is the value of that alliance again?

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

(10-21-2020 01:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  UVA and UNC pretty much have the 6 VA/NC schools permanently locked into the ACC.

Pitt, BC, and Cuse don’t really have anywhere to go unless ND decides its future is the Big Ten and they need a companion.

I don’t think Louisville has enough pull to merit an SEC invite so they are probably set in stone where they are.

GT is a fading athletic power that has a lot of academic prestige that I think is pretty committed to UNC/Duke/UVA.

Clemson and FSU are the brands that would fit in the SEC. at some point, I think they get tired of being behind in revenue and push for a change.

It’s hard what to make of Miami. They’re sort of their own identity. They just can’t seem to get back to their winning ways.

It will be interesting to see what the SEC and ESPN do. Is there a desire to consolidate more high dollar properties into the SEC family. (IMHO if you add Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Ok St, Clemson, and FSU to the SEC you’ve got one behemoth media property on your hands.)

If Disney truly is planning on selling off ESPN it will be very interesting to see what happens to it and what direction they take. Things could also take an interesting turn if the conferences start trying to monetize their inventory direct to the consumer.

Did I miss the news story on that item?
Can you please provide a link......that is huge....who are they selling to?