(06-06-2021 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

And everyone but the ACC loses value.

The SEC loses 50% of South Carolina in exchange for 35% of a Kentucky market we have leverage over. Then we give up an AAU school and a market of 6 million in exchange for the smallest market in the P5 and the B1G gives up Maryland for a second school in Pennsylvania when Penn State gives them leverage.

Clearly this is delusional woad blue thinking since in reality the SEC and B1G will simply do what is best for them with no regard whatsoever for the lowest revenue generating conference in the P5. Has it occurred to you that the reason the SEC and B1G are in positions of advantage is because they do the best jobs of taking care of themselves and because since 1987 they have been planning out where they wanted to be rather than merely being satisfied with status quo? They realized in the late 80's that if you didn't grow, and grow strategically you would be dying. Meanwhile UNC, Duke and UVa were happy to be left alone, as was Texas, until forced to make moves and to do so reactively and with what was available rather than proactively for a landscape that was changing. The ACC made one proactive move, FSU, and that move paid dividends. The rest have been schools that were at or slightly below the ACC mean. (Except for Louisville which you deride.) Miami is above your mean but not significantly.

So you are stuck with what you have because of lack of strategic planning. The SEC had a priority list to 20 back in 1990. Frank put together a prospective list of Big 10 targets prior to 2010 and the Big 10 knew Penn St, Notre Dame and Nebraska well in advance and they also had a list of prioritized targets afterward even if the likelihood of interest seemed low. One gets the feeling that most ACC targets were inspired by ESPN.

Exactly JR!!!

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

With those changes, one of the seven schools (Missouri) would probably not complain too much. Three would be pretty happy (West Virginia, Louisville and Pitt) and three would have to be dragged away kicking and screaming (Maryland, South Carolina and Nebraska). Some of that could be corrected if you were able to make the changes as "loans" in which every team that moves would be continued to be paid by the conference they left instead of the ones they went to.

(06-06-2021 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So you are stuck with what you have because of lack of strategic planning. The SEC had a priority list to 20 back in 1990.

Well if the SEC had a list of 20 in 1990, Arkansas and South Carolina was the best they did??? I assume Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, and Miami were all on that list. Arkansas won one national championship in men's basketball and has been irrelevant in football since they joined the SEC. South Carolina is known for hiring coaches that won national championships at other schools. The two schools combine for about 8 million. They didn't get into Texas until the 2010's.

You can say the Big Ten is where they are today because of 1990's expansion. 1990's expansion didn't do anything for the SEC. The SEC succeeded in spite of 1990's expansion, the teams that are the SEC moneymakers were either already in the SEC or joined in the 2010's (Texas A&M). The only advantage to gaining South Carolina and Arkansas was gaining the SEC Championship Game and that was a huge advantage being the first and easily the most popular.

But as popular as the SEC is today, imagine how popular they would be today if they had taken either Bobby Bowden's Florida State or the 1990's Miami and either Texas or Texas A&M back in the 1990's instead of Arkansas and South Carolina. The SEC admittedly is the dominant force in Florida despite having just one school vs. two in the ACC. But imagine if the SEC had two Florida schools vs. one for the ACC (or if the ACC had UCF or USF instead of FSU or Miami). The SEC won seven national championships in football 2006-2012 and yet they won't catch the Big Ten in revenue until 2024. Why? While the Big Ten added Penn State the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina.

(06-06-2021 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

And everyone but the ACC loses value.

The SEC loses 50% of South Carolina in exchange for 35% of a Kentucky market we have leverage over. Then we give up an AAU school and a market of 6 million in exchange for the smallest market in the P5 and the B1G gives up Maryland for a second school in Pennsylvania when Penn State gives them leverage.

Clearly this is delusional woad blue thinking since in reality the SEC and B1G will simply do what is best for them with no regard whatsoever for the lowest revenue generating conference in the P5. Has it occurred to you that the reason the SEC and B1G are in positions of advantage is because they do the best jobs of taking care of themselves and because since 1987 they have been planning out where they wanted to be rather than merely being satisfied with status quo? They realized in the late 80's that if you didn't grow, and grow strategically you would be dying. Meanwhile UNC, Duke and UVa were happy to be left alone, as was Texas, until forced to make moves and to do so reactively and with what was available rather than proactively for a landscape that was changing. The ACC made one proactive move, FSU, and that move paid dividends. The rest have been schools that were at or slightly below the ACC mean. (Except for Louisville which you deride.) Miami is above your mean but not significantly.

So you are stuck with what you have because of lack of strategic planning. The SEC had a priority list to 20 back in 1990. Frank put together a prospective list of Big 10 targets prior to 2010 and the Big 10 knew Penn St, Notre Dame and Nebraska well in advance and they also had a list of prioritized targets afterward even if the likelihood of interest seemed low. One gets the feeling that most ACC targets were inspired by ESPN.

So you are now giving Woad credit for my ideas?
You guys need to sort out your differences at the office.

The SEC gives up a bottom dweller in exchange for something you desperately need which is another blue blood basketball program. With the addition of West Virginia and Louisville the SEC completely claims the western side of Appalachian culture, and finally provides a platform from which Tennessee can finally find a path out of the their abyss.
This deal benefits the SEC as much or more than any conference, and a big reason that you want to poo-poo it is that it wasn't your idea. Grow up. Playoff football will benefit everyone in the P5, but it has to make sense to the casual fan, plus it won't cost he SEC one thin dime in revenue.

(06-06-2021 01:39 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So you are stuck with what you have because of lack of strategic planning. The SEC had a priority list to 20 back in 1990.

Well if the SEC had a list of 20 in 1990, Arkansas and South Carolina was the best they did??? I assume Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, and Miami were all on that list. Arkansas won one national championship in men's basketball and has been irrelevant in football since they joined the SEC. South Carolina is known for hiring coaches that won national championships at other schools. The two schools combine for about 8 million. They didn't get into Texas until the 2010's.

You can say the Big Ten is where they are today because of 1990's expansion. 1990's expansion didn't do anything for the SEC. The SEC succeeded in spite of 1990's expansion, the teams that are the SEC moneymakers were either already in the SEC or joined in the 2010's (Texas A&M). The only advantage to gaining South Carolina and Arkansas was gaining the SEC Championship Game and that was a huge advantage being the first and easily the most popular.

But as popular as the SEC is today, imagine how popular they would be today if they had taken either Bobby Bowden's Florida State or the 1990's Miami and either Texas or Texas A&M back in the 1990's instead of Arkansas and South Carolina. The SEC admittedly is the dominant force in Florida despite having just one school vs. two in the ACC. But imagine if the SEC had two Florida schools vs. one for the ACC (or if the ACC had UCF or USF instead of FSU or Miami). The SEC won seven national championships in football 2006-2012 and yet they won't catch the Big Ten in revenue until 2024. Why? While the Big Ten added Penn State the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina.

What part of Strategic do you not understand?

When Kramer and the presidents first met they had as their expansion goal Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, a silent party with Texas which was later said to be Oklahoma and Clemson and Florida State. When Texas and A&M couldn't or wouldn't commit Oklahoma naturally lost interest.

The SEC made a mistake in using ESPN for a valuation on FSU because somehow the ACC knew how much we would offer and what day the offer would be made and the ACC contingent showed up a day before the SEC's meeting date and offered them more. I'm not a guy who believes in accidents. Clemson had a trustee who made an trustee at So. Carolina aware of our expansion interest. They applied. Arkansas was coming no matter what, A&M wanted to but had issues politically back home.

So 2 objectives were attained:
1. We moved to 12 teams in 2 divisions and had the first CCG which was and is a major money maker.
2. Arkansas was a bridge to Texas which paid dividends in 2012 with A&M. South Carolina remains a bridge to North Carolina and it helped balance divisions.

Prior to the 1992 realignment WVU applied and Va Tech expressed interest. Both were considered too remote.

So we got a South Carolina school, the only school of size in Arkansas, A&M, and Missouri essentially took FSU's slot. That leaves Texas and OU. So the plans have taken longer and after 4 additions I'd say we have earned a B+ overall and so far only Missouri has pushed the original boundary.

Ditto for the Big 10 who wanted growing eastern markets and got them. Nebraska was a major get which hasn't panned out. But other than Nebraska the adds fit their needs.

Now as to the 20 team plan it was defensive in nature and was developed to be a response to a Big10 move into the ACC. The SEC thinking was to defend the deep South meaning FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami. With South Carolina, Tennessee, and then Arkansas forming the barrier with Kentucky being a buffer. Why? Advertising leverage over the Southeast. We were under the market model and would remain their through 2012. When the ACC was threatened with the departure of Maryland in 2011-2 North Carolina popped up on SEC radar for future consideration.

Now that we have returned more to a brand/content driven market the focus has shifted West again with UT and OU adding the most value and the need to defend turf less important due to new pay models.

(06-06-2021 01:14 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  South Carolina has no desire to return to the ACC. Missouri has no interest in the Big Ten either.

The former statement is understandable. The latter is dubious at best.

(06-06-2021 01:14 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

South Carolina has no desire to return to the ACC. Missouri has no interest in the Big Ten either.

Wanna bet?
The chickens continue to load up their future OOC schedules with ACC teams (Miami, Carolina, NC State and Virginia Tech) in nine of 11 years, not counting their annual game against Clemson (2025-2035).

(06-06-2021 01:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

And everyone but the ACC loses value.

The SEC loses 50% of South Carolina in exchange for 35% of a Kentucky market we have leverage over. Then we give up an AAU school and a market of 6 million in exchange for the smallest market in the P5 and the B1G gives up Maryland for a second school in Pennsylvania when Penn State gives them leverage.

Clearly this is delusional woad blue thinking since in reality the SEC and B1G will simply do what is best for them with no regard whatsoever for the lowest revenue generating conference in the P5. Has it occurred to you that the reason the SEC and B1G are in positions of advantage is because they do the best jobs of taking care of themselves and because since 1987 they have been planning out where they wanted to be rather than merely being satisfied with status quo? They realized in the late 80's that if you didn't grow, and grow strategically you would be dying. Meanwhile UNC, Duke and UVa were happy to be left alone, as was Texas, until forced to make moves and to do so reactively and with what was available rather than proactively for a landscape that was changing. The ACC made one proactive move, FSU, and that move paid dividends. The rest have been schools that were at or slightly below the ACC mean. (Except for Louisville which you deride.) Miami is above your mean but not significantly.

So you are stuck with what you have because of lack of strategic planning. The SEC had a priority list to 20 back in 1990. Frank put together a prospective list of Big 10 targets prior to 2010 and the Big 10 knew Penn St, Notre Dame and Nebraska well in advance and they also had a list of prioritized targets afterward even if the likelihood of interest seemed low. One gets the feeling that most ACC targets were inspired by ESPN.

So you are now giving Woad credit for my ideas?
You guys need to sort out your differences at the office.

The SEC gives up a bottom dweller in exchange for something you desperately need which is another blue blood basketball program. With the addition of West Virginia and Louisville the SEC completely claims the western side of Appalachian culture, and finally provides a platform from which Tennessee can finally find a path out of the their abyss.
This deal benefits the SEC as much or more than any conference, and a big reason that you want to poo-poo it is that it wasn't your idea. Grow up. Playoff football will benefit everyone in the P5, but it has to make sense to the casual fan, plus it won't cost he SEC one thin dime in revenue.

Did I capitalize the word? I thought you Tar Heels preferred that descriptor to "baby blue" but given the level of whine I suppose baby blue would have been clearer. Sell your troll elsewhere. I'm not buying.

(06-06-2021 03:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 01:14 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

South Carolina has no desire to return to the ACC. Missouri has no interest in the Big Ten either.

Wanna bet?
The chickens continue to load up their future OOC schedules with ACC teams (Miami, Carolina, NC State and Virginia Tech) in nine of 11 years, not counting their annual game against Clemson (2025-2035).

Sure, I'll bet. UNC is to chickens what Florida is to UGa. NC State is another rivalry for the chickens. Miami is probably for recruiting. Virginia Tech is because Shane Beamer has a connection to the program.

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.

(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.

1. Arkansas was one of the first extended an invitation and Broyles was instrumental in discussions with A&M and Texas.

2. I had family involved in 1992. So stop your conjecture because that's all it is.

3. Reread my remarks and cite them accurately. I said FSU was both a proactive move and one that paid dividends. You are mischaracterizing my remarks to set up a false narrative I don't tolerate that kind of manipulation and dishonesty. Engage what I said, not your missed restatement of what I said.

4. Yes they added states, but not flagships or dominant programs. Most of those didn't add the value that FSU did. But, they were instrumental in keeping ESPN's toe in the Big East market when Aresco made noise about the ESPN contract. ESPN insured their markets by adding them to the ACC even though their value numbers didn't improve the ACC's except for subscription fees which didn't materialize until the tardy ACCN finally happened.

5. Maryland did talk to the SEC prior to joining the B1G but it was more out of trying to gauge their value as there was no mutual interest.

6. Why do you think ESPN used the ACC to take Big East schools? Syracuse and Pitt might have held interest for B1G East coast market development. Remember Delany had rebuffed an ESPN offer prior to all of this and Delany had started his own network as a result of that meeting and those markets were vulnerable for ESPN especially with the Big East making similar complaints to Delany.

This is why I made my statement that it looked like ESPN was parking properties in markets ESPN wanted to keep in the ACC.

7. Numerous times I've pointed out why the ACC doesn't monetize those properties and it's for the same reasons the Big East wasn't as well paid as the other conferences. So I'm actually blaming 3 parties for the ACC's low valuation. ESPN because they did take up slots for undervalued Big East product which they paid more to at ACC rates but didn't provide a large enough boost to the ACC for taking them. So ESPN got what they wanted. Old Big East schools got a boost. The ACC didn't get the same kind of boost because less valuable was moving to more valuable, a problem the ACC didn't have when Georgia Tech joined in the 70's or when FSU joined both adding large markets and brand value. I blame ACC leadership for not holding out for more. And I think Tobacco Road didn't hold the commissioner to task because the moves weren't things that altered their interests.

8. The Red Portion is your grandstanding trying to find an easy audience for your trolling a non existent issue. I've never referred to the ACC as a mid major, ever! You tossed that garbage in for drama. And the SEC doesn't want to invite ACC teams because there aren't any now that add to our bottom line. Maybe FSU is a break even, maybe. But the change in pay models even mitigates that. In 2011 when Maryland departed, I was told UNC called Birmingham looking for a safe place if the ACC imploded, but made it clear it would be a last resort. That's the only interest ever expressed.

The SEC wants the ACC to stay together because we don't can't profit from any of their schools unless the network makes it profitable. The ACC is a perfect buffer for the SEC. It leaves us to enjoy a football priority unencumbered by financially sound competition, and it leaves us slots for profitable expansion to the West, if we expand at all.

When I talk about the ACC being raided it is because of financial disparity and as a way of building a more valuable product out of the B12 without adding value to the B1G or SEC. IMO a more balanced 3 conferences (SEC/B1G/B12) would be better for the game than what we have now. The PAC is so remote that they are simply what they are going to be.

Calling things which are factual what they are isn't anything but dealing with reality. And in this case the only way the ACC schools catch up significantly in revenue is if you place the best football product in the B12, some of the hoops product at pro rata in the SEC and some in the Big 10. If they all make more and close the gap while we get more balance in the upper tier that could be a good thing for all.

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

Maryland is not coming back, man. The money gap became wider since they left.

I would say it’s unhealthy to keep dreaming of the ex girl friend who left for the money. Time to move on.

With respect to South Carolina, I highly doubt they want to come back. But let’s suppose they are back. I think what would happen then is Clemson would openly try to leave for the SEC. They know the SEC won’t take them as long as the gamecocks are in the SEC.

(06-06-2021 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

And everyone but the ACC loses value.

The SEC loses 50% of South Carolina in exchange for 35% of a Kentucky market we have leverage over. Then we give up an AAU school and a market of 6 million in exchange for the smallest market in the P5 and the B1G gives up Maryland for a second school in Pennsylvania when Penn State gives them leverage.

Clearly this is delusional woad blue thinking since in reality the SEC and B1G will simply do what is best for them with no regard whatsoever for the lowest revenue generating conference in the P5. Has it occurred to you that the reason the SEC and B1G are in positions of advantage is because they do the best jobs of taking care of themselves and because since 1987 they have been planning out where they wanted to be rather than merely being satisfied with status quo? They realized in the late 80's that if you didn't grow, and grow strategically you would be dying. Meanwhile UNC, Duke and UVa were happy to be left alone, as was Texas, until forced to make moves and to do so reactively and with what was available rather than proactively for a landscape that was changing. The ACC made one proactive move, FSU, and that move paid dividends. The rest have been schools that were at or slightly below the ACC mean. (Except for Louisville which you deride.) Miami is above your mean but not significantly.

So you are stuck with what you have because of lack of strategic planning. The SEC had a priority list to 20 back in 1990. Frank put together a prospective list of Big 10 targets prior to 2010 and the Big 10 knew Penn St, Notre Dame and Nebraska well in advance and they also had a list of prioritized targets afterward even if the likelihood of interest seemed low. One gets the feeling that most ACC targets were inspired by ESPN.

I do think Swofford closely listened to/followed the ESPN’s directions. That’s probably why he didn’t include VT in the first place as the ACC already had Virginia.

Having said that, I think his expansion effort was strategically sound and even proactive. The ACC accomplished the following:

1. With more teams and content, the ACCN got started.
2. The Big East football is dead.
3. ND chose the ACC over the Big 12. Obviously the addition of BC, Pitt, and Cuse helped.

I think the ACC even approached PSU. The Big Ten didn’t like it and added two Eastern teams. In a way, the Big Ten’s move can be considered reactive.

(06-06-2021 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When I talk about the ACC being raided it is because of financial disparity and as a way of building a more valuable product out of the B12 without adding value to the B1G or SEC. IMO a more balanced 3 conferences (SEC/B1G/B12) would be better for the game than what we have now. The PAC is so remote that they are simply what they are going to be.

Calling things which are factual what they are isn't anything but dealing with reality. And in this case the only way the ACC schools catch up significantly in revenue is if you place the best football product in the B12, some of the hoops product at pro rata in the SEC and some in the Big 10. If they all make more and close the gap while we get more balance in the upper tier that could be a good thing for all.

To accomplish that will probably require that some schools we all usually assume are joined at the hip would agree to go their separate ways. This configuration would be an example of that:

SEC East: Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Louisville, Tennessee, Duke, Kentucky, Vandy
SEC West: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Mizzou, Ole Miss, Arkansas

B1G East: Ohio St, Michigan, Penn State, UNC, Indiana, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers
B1G West: Wisconsin, Michigan St, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois

B12 East: Clemson, Florida St, Va Tech, West Virginia, Miami, Ga Tech, NC State, Iowa St
B12 West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TCU, Kansas St, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas

In that scenario, Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest are left looking for a home, presumably in the AAC. The problem with that is that many ACC teams left out means there is no way to dissolve the conference without huge exit penalties (in the $1 Billion range).

(06-06-2021 07:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When I talk about the ACC being raided it is because of financial disparity and as a way of building a more valuable product out of the B12 without adding value to the B1G or SEC. IMO a more balanced 3 conferences (SEC/B1G/B12) would be better for the game than what we have now. The PAC is so remote that they are simply what they are going to be.

Calling things which are factual what they are isn't anything but dealing with reality. And in this case the only way the ACC schools catch up significantly in revenue is if you place the best football product in the B12, some of the hoops product at pro rata in the SEC and some in the Big 10. If they all make more and close the gap while we get more balance in the upper tier that could be a good thing for all.

To accomplish that will probably require that some schools we all usually assume are joined at the hip would agree to go their separate ways. This configuration would be an example of that:

SEC East: Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Louisville, Tennessee, Duke, Kentucky, Vandy
SEC West: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Mizzou, Ole Miss, Arkansas

B1G East: Ohio St, Michigan, Penn State, UNC, Indiana, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers
B1G West: Wisconsin, Michigan St, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois

B12 East: Clemson, Florida St, Va Tech, West Virginia, Miami, Ga Tech, NC State, Iowa St
B12 West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TCU, Kansas St, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas

In that scenario, Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest are left looking for a home, presumably in the AAC. The problem with that is that many ACC teams left out means there is no way to dissolve the conference without huge exit penalties (in the $1 Billion range).

It is cheaper to accommodate them a 3 x 18 works and adding Cincy to the B12 with takes care of it and adds a nice market. Place Va Tech & N.C. State & Wake Forest & TCU in the SEC. Put UNC, Duke, UVa and Pitt in the B1G, and add B.C., Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, BYU, and Notre Dame in the B12 and you have this 18:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Notre Dame, Syracuse, West Virginia
Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

N.D. has to go all in.

Now you've solved the issue and NIL and stipends may soon lessen the obligation.

When it comes to expansion moves over the past 30-ish years there’s definitely been some moves that were flashier than others. There’s been some expansion moves that look downright brilliant on paper that just haven’t yielded results and some conferences that have managed to flourish despite lackluster expansion.

The SEC has been insanely successful but I don’t think it was a product of brilliant expansion. In 1990 they were really hoping to grab some major players—Texas, TAMU, Clemson, Florida St, Oklahoma. Instead, they got the western bridge school (but not the western gems) and settled for their 3rd choice in the East, South Carolina. They got their CCG and went on to have 3 highly successful decades of football but it wasn’t due to the newcomers. Long time members Tennessee, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, and especially Alabama have had phenomenal success on the field. College football is incredibly popular in the SEC footprint and rich with recruits.

Then look at the ACC. As JR suggests, I think they had help from ESPN when they landed Florida St. Fair or foul, it gave them a dominant power and secured them a seat at the table. Getting the Noles was a huge coup for them. The ACC’s next expansion move was Miami, VT, and BC. On paper, that move looks great. Twin sunshine state powers Miami and Florida St, bolstered by a supporting cast of VT and Clemson and a footprint up and down the whole east Coast—the ACC ought to have been brilliant for almost 2 decades now but they just can’t seem to have all their football steeds galloping at the same time to produce a conference race that that had the kind of depth and excitement the SEC has enjoyed.

I guess the moral of the story is that excellent expansion grabs don’t always deliver success and riches

(06-06-2021 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 07:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When I talk about the ACC being raided it is because of financial disparity and as a way of building a more valuable product out of the B12 without adding value to the B1G or SEC. IMO a more balanced 3 conferences (SEC/B1G/B12) would be better for the game than what we have now. The PAC is so remote that they are simply what they are going to be.

Calling things which are factual what they are isn't anything but dealing with reality. And in this case the only way the ACC schools catch up significantly in revenue is if you place the best football product in the B12, some of the hoops product at pro rata in the SEC and some in the Big 10. If they all make more and close the gap while we get more balance in the upper tier that could be a good thing for all.

To accomplish that will probably require that some schools we all usually assume are joined at the hip would agree to go their separate ways. This configuration would be an example of that:

SEC East: Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Louisville, Tennessee, Duke, Kentucky, Vandy
SEC West: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Mizzou, Ole Miss, Arkansas

B1G East: Ohio St, Michigan, Penn State, UNC, Indiana, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers
B1G West: Wisconsin, Michigan St, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois

B12 East: Clemson, Florida St, Va Tech, West Virginia, Miami, Ga Tech, NC State, Iowa St
B12 West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TCU, Kansas St, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas

In that scenario, Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest are left looking for a home, presumably in the AAC. The problem with that is that many ACC teams left out means there is no way to dissolve the conference without huge exit penalties (in the $1 Billion range).

It is cheaper to accommodate them a 3 x 18 works and adding Cincy to the B12 with takes care of it and adds a nice market. Place Va Tech & N.C. State & Wake Forest & TCU in the SEC. Put UNC, Duke, UVa and Pitt in the B1G, and add B.C., Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, BYU, and Notre Dame in the B12 and you have this 18:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Notre Dame, Syracuse, West Virginia
Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

N.D. has to go all in.

Now you've solved the issue and NIL and stipends may soon lessen the obligation.

I think you end up with much better conferences when you divide up the ACC among the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 (with the Big 12 getting the bulk of the schools already in the SEC footprint) than you do by busting up the Big 12.

Unfortunately, if a P5 conference gets dismembered, I think it’s the Big 12.

i'm willing to bet some money if the BIG invited Mizzu, they would leave the SEC immediately. It's where they always wanted to be.. they feel Nebraska took their spot

(06-06-2021 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It is cheaper to accommodate them a 3 x 18 works and adding Cincy to the B12 with takes care of it and adds a nice market. Place Va Tech & N.C. State & Wake Forest & TCU in the SEC. Put UNC, Duke, UVa and Pitt in the B1G, and add B.C., Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, BYU, and Notre Dame in the B12 and you have this 18:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Notre Dame, Syracuse, West Virginia
Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

N.D. has to go all in.

Now you've solved the issue and NIL and stipends may soon lessen the obligation.

Getting Notre Dame to go all in won't be easy, and they sure wouldn't want to do it with that lineup. I'm also harking back to one of your earlier posts in which you talked about beefing up SEC hoops as a tradeoff for accepting some less powerful ACC football programs. I tried to put together a rational 66 member upper division within the FBS, consisting of 3X18 and 1X12 (PAC) schools. I envision each conference having three divisions and a four team conference tournament leading to a champs only four team playoff. All schools would agree to play at least 7 games within their conference (including a full division round robin) and at least 10 games against upper division (P4) opponents, and no FCS opponents.

SEC West: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, Vandy
SEC Central: LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Missouri, Ole Miss, Arkansas
SEC East: Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, UNC, Duke, Virginia

B12 West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Texas Tech, BYU (FB only), Iowa State
B12 Central: Notre Dame, TCU, Baylor, Texas, Miami, Georgia Tech
B12 East: Clemson, Florida St, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, NC State, Wake Forest

B1G West: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Minnesota, Kansas
B1G Central: Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
B1G East: Penn State, Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse,
Maryland, Rutgers

PAC Northwest: Oregon, Washington, Washington St, Oregon St
PAC California: Stanford, Southern Cal, UCLA, California
PAC Southwest: Utah, Arizona St, Arizona, Colorado

Getting the B1G to go along with this would be difficult. I would envision dealing with revenue disparities to be resolved by considering all current B1G and SEC members as "legacy members" for revenue sharing purposes, keeping their current top dollar pay, with all other members in the three eastern conferences guaranteed a significant raise from their current pay grade.

The spoonful of sugar to make Notre Dame's medicine go down is limiting their conference schedule to seven games, letting them retain their California rivals and Navy, while putting them in a division that puts them in Florida, Georgia and Texas but which still gives them a good chance to qualify as a division champ for a path to a national championship when they deserve one.

(06-06-2021 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 01:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Now look what happens with two realignment moves that are logical and beneficial to everyone:

1-the ACC trades Louisville to the SEC for South Carolina

2-The ACC trades Pittsburgh to the B1G for Maryland


The number of conflicting schools in the ACC "territory" drops from 9 to three (Rutgers, Georgia, and Florida)

The number of conflicting schools in the SEC territory drops from 4 to two (Florida State and Georgia Tech)

The number of conflicting schools in the B1G "territory" drops from 3 to one (Iowa State)

I would then propose a three way trade to further eliminate conflicting overlap

1-The Big 12 sends West Virginia to the SEC
2-The SEC sends Missouri to the B1G
3-The B1G sends Nebraska to the Big 12

If we remain at 5 conferences the line up would be

PAC (unchanged)
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado

Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State

SEC
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisville

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana, Michigan, MDU, Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

ACC
Syracuse, Boston College, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami.

Perfectus

And everyone but the ACC loses value.

The SEC loses 50% of South Carolina in exchange for 35% of a Kentucky market we have leverage over. Then we give up an AAU school and a market of 6 million in exchange for the smallest market in the P5 and the B1G gives up Maryland for a second school in Pennsylvania when Penn State gives them leverage.

Clearly this is delusional woad blue thinking since in reality the SEC and B1G will simply do what is best for them with no regard whatsoever for the lowest revenue generating conference in the P5. Has it occurred to you that the reason the SEC and B1G are in positions of advantage is because they do the best jobs of taking care of themselves and because since 1987 they have been planning out where they wanted to be rather than merely being satisfied with status quo? They realized in the late 80's that if you didn't grow, and grow strategically you would be dying. Meanwhile UNC, Duke and UVa were happy to be left alone, as was Texas, until forced to make moves and to do so reactively and with what was available rather than proactively for a landscape that was changing. The ACC made one proactive move, FSU, and that move paid dividends. The rest have been schools that were at or slightly below the ACC mean. (Except for Louisville which you deride.) Miami is above your mean but not significantly.

So you are stuck with what you have because of lack of strategic planning. The SEC had a priority list to 20 back in 1990. Frank put together a prospective list of Big 10 targets prior to 2010 and the Big 10 knew Penn St, Notre Dame and Nebraska well in advance and they also had a list of prioritized targets afterward even if the likelihood of interest seemed low. One gets the feeling that most ACC targets were inspired by ESPN.

So you are now giving Woad credit for my ideas?
You guys need to sort out your differences at the office.

The SEC gives up a bottom dweller in exchange for something you desperately need which is another blue blood basketball program. With the addition of West Virginia and Louisville the SEC completely claims the western side of Appalachian culture, and finally provides a platform from which Tennessee can finally find a path out of the their abyss.
This deal benefits the SEC as much or more than any conference, and a big reason that you want to poo-poo it is that it wasn't your idea. Grow up. Playoff football will benefit everyone in the P5, but it has to make sense to the casual fan, plus it won't cost he SEC one thin dime in revenue.

Did I capitalize the word? I thought you Tar Heels preferred that descriptor to "baby blue" but given the level of whine I suppose baby blue would have been clearer. Sell your troll elsewhere. I'm not buying.

JR, I owe you a sincere apology. I didn't realize that you were using woad as a shade of blue. It wasn't until you had referenced baby blue that I understood the miscommunication.
Just so we don't have this problem again in the future, feel free to reference that color by it's proper name, "Carolina Blue" which is a unique color that has been defined by the PANTONE #542.