(06-06-2021 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  OK JRSec, the SEC certainly did plan to expand ever since the 1990's and I highly doubt they choose Arkansas and South Carolina over Florida schools and Texas schools. The Texas schools were stuck with Texas politics and Florida State for sure chose the ACC over the SEC (not sure what the Miami story was).

That being said, your statement implied the Big Ten and SEC made moves in realignment while the ACC failed to do so, lagged behind, or reacted to the Big Ten/SEC. The statement that Florida State chose the ACC itself disputes your theory that the ACC lagged behind or reacted. The ACC is almost double the size it was in 1990. They lost Maryland since then but added schools in Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Kentucky, three of which are huge population states, and three universities in large markets (Boston College, Miami, and Pittsburgh). They've added more schools than the Big Ten or SEC since 1991 and they've expanded their geographic footprint more than both conferences. It hasn't paid off for the ACC but it wasn't for a lack of effort. The ACC single handily killed a "BCS" football conference. If it weren't for the ACC, the P5 or A5 would still be a P6. Can the Big Ten or SEC say that?

You seem to think the ACC is way inferior to the SEC (from many posts I've read you discuss them). In terms of revenue, they are. But they're not a mid major either. And it's interesting to me that you probably feel that every ACC would jump at an SEC invite if they got one and you're probably right. Since 1991 how many schools have left the ACC for the SEC? Ironically a school has left the ACC for the ... Big Ten.

Their settling schools may have been best. They brought in two schools who performed middle of the pack. That enabled the top to thrive. And they got the CCG which gave them a higher profile.

(06-07-2021 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  OK JRSec, the SEC certainly did plan to expand ever since the 1990's and I highly doubt they choose Arkansas and South Carolina over Florida schools and Texas schools. The Texas schools were stuck with Texas politics and Florida State for sure chose the ACC over the SEC (not sure what the Miami story was).

That being said, your statement implied the Big Ten and SEC made moves in realignment while the ACC failed to do so, lagged behind, or reacted to the Big Ten/SEC. The statement that Florida State chose the ACC itself disputes your theory that the ACC lagged behind or reacted. The ACC is almost double the size it was in 1990. They lost Maryland since then but added schools in Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Kentucky, three of which are huge population states, and three universities in large markets (Boston College, Miami, and Pittsburgh). They've added more schools than the Big Ten or SEC since 1991 and they've expanded their geographic footprint more than both conferences. It hasn't paid off for the ACC but it wasn't for a lack of effort. The ACC single handily killed a "BCS" football conference. If it weren't for the ACC, the P5 or A5 would still be a P6. Can the Big Ten or SEC say that?

You seem to think the ACC is way inferior to the SEC (from many posts I've read you discuss them). In terms of revenue, they are. But they're not a mid major either. And it's interesting to me that you probably feel that every ACC would jump at an SEC invite if they got one and you're probably right. Since 1991 how many schools have left the ACC for the SEC? Ironically a school has left the ACC for the ... Big Ten.

Their settling schools may have been best. They brought in two schools who performed middle of the pack. That enabled the top to thrive. And they got the CCG which gave them a higher profile.

Almost all of the realignment moves have been made by middle of the pack schools.
I would imagine that the early expansion of the B1G with Penn State and the ACC with Florida State would be the most significant, with Texas A&M to the SEC one step behind.
Miami and Nebraska both should have been bigger, but neither has panned out as planned.

(06-08-2021 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  OK JRSec, the SEC certainly did plan to expand ever since the 1990's and I highly doubt they choose Arkansas and South Carolina over Florida schools and Texas schools. The Texas schools were stuck with Texas politics and Florida State for sure chose the ACC over the SEC (not sure what the Miami story was).

That being said, your statement implied the Big Ten and SEC made moves in realignment while the ACC failed to do so, lagged behind, or reacted to the Big Ten/SEC. The statement that Florida State chose the ACC itself disputes your theory that the ACC lagged behind or reacted. The ACC is almost double the size it was in 1990. They lost Maryland since then but added schools in Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Kentucky, three of which are huge population states, and three universities in large markets (Boston College, Miami, and Pittsburgh). They've added more schools than the Big Ten or SEC since 1991 and they've expanded their geographic footprint more than both conferences. It hasn't paid off for the ACC but it wasn't for a lack of effort. The ACC single handily killed a "BCS" football conference. If it weren't for the ACC, the P5 or A5 would still be a P6. Can the Big Ten or SEC say that?

You seem to think the ACC is way inferior to the SEC (from many posts I've read you discuss them). In terms of revenue, they are. But they're not a mid major either. And it's interesting to me that you probably feel that every ACC would jump at an SEC invite if they got one and you're probably right. Since 1991 how many schools have left the ACC for the SEC? Ironically a school has left the ACC for the ... Big Ten.

Their settling schools may have been best. They brought in two schools who performed middle of the pack. That enabled the top to thrive. And they got the CCG which gave them a higher profile.

Almost all of the realignment moves have been made by middle of the pack schools.
I would imagine that the early expansion of the B1G with Penn State and the ACC with Florida State would be the most significant, with Texas A&M to the SEC one step behind.
Miami and Nebraska both should have been bigger, but neither has panned out as planned.

Texas A&M was and is a middle of the pack school. But they bring an outsized market and recruiting area.

(06-08-2021 12:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 09:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 05:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  OK JRSec, the SEC certainly did plan to expand ever since the 1990's and I highly doubt they choose Arkansas and South Carolina over Florida schools and Texas schools. The Texas schools were stuck with Texas politics and Florida State for sure chose the ACC over the SEC (not sure what the Miami story was).

That being said, your statement implied the Big Ten and SEC made moves in realignment while the ACC failed to do so, lagged behind, or reacted to the Big Ten/SEC. The statement that Florida State chose the ACC itself disputes your theory that the ACC lagged behind or reacted. The ACC is almost double the size it was in 1990. They lost Maryland since then but added schools in Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Kentucky, three of which are huge population states, and three universities in large markets (Boston College, Miami, and Pittsburgh). They've added more schools than the Big Ten or SEC since 1991 and they've expanded their geographic footprint more than both conferences. It hasn't paid off for the ACC but it wasn't for a lack of effort. The ACC single handily killed a "BCS" football conference. If it weren't for the ACC, the P5 or A5 would still be a P6. Can the Big Ten or SEC say that?

You seem to think the ACC is way inferior to the SEC (from many posts I've read you discuss them). In terms of revenue, they are. But they're not a mid major either. And it's interesting to me that you probably feel that every ACC would jump at an SEC invite if they got one and you're probably right. Since 1991 how many schools have left the ACC for the SEC? Ironically a school has left the ACC for the ... Big Ten.

Their settling schools may have been best. They brought in two schools who performed middle of the pack. That enabled the top to thrive. And they got the CCG which gave them a higher profile.

Almost all of the realignment moves have been made by middle of the pack schools.
I would imagine that the early expansion of the B1G with Penn State and the ACC with Florida State would be the most significant, with Texas A&M to the SEC one step behind.
Miami and Nebraska both should have been bigger, but neither has panned out as planned.

Texas A&M was and is a middle of the pack school. But they bring an outsized market and recruiting area.

Your description of A&M would also fit NC State to a T!