(03-30-2022 01:18 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote: (03-30-2022 07:08 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: (03-29-2022 06:26 PM)XLance Wrote: Miami turned the SEC down.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...story.html
I remember that. There’s another news report out there somewhere of Florida State choosing the ACC over the SEC as well.
I mentioned it earlier how the youngsters try to make history fit into their preconceived paradigm. When someone shows them evidence to the contrary they simply ignore it and continue on their merry way. That fascinates me. I guess ignorance really is bliss.
I have a friend here in Hattiesburg who was an asst baseball coach at Fla state at the time. He has always said this was true. FSU had the choice of either and went with the acc.
Time and stories confuse. Your friend is correct. FSU was offered. Miami was not. Miami was visited for discussions about joining. As with Boren and Oklahoma in 2011 they did not get an offer though each claimed to have. It is a face saving thing some do when they publicly announce discussions because they are using them as leverage for something else. Boren wanted the SEC to take Oklahoma State. The SEC was just offering Oklahoma because A&M had already said yes, and we needed 2 schools from different markets to renegotiate the contract. Slive told Boren we couldn't do that and Boren told the press OU had turned down the SEC offer which was not true. Boren counter offered and the SEC turned down his counter offer. In Miami's case our members arrived and it was evident there wasn't much mutual interest and they departed. Miami claimed they had turned down an offer. No offer was made. But it made them appear sought at a time when they were wanting other offers.
In the case of FSU the SEC sought a valuation from ESPN as to what FSU would be worth in the SEC. Kramer and others didn't realize ESPN's then interest in acquiring ACC rights. If the SEC landed FSU they would control ad rates in Florida. ESPN wanted to avoid this. They gave us an estimate which was favorable and knew when we would make the offer. The ACC delegation arrived a day earlier and made a better offer because ESPN controlled the information to each. Bowden who had been turned down numerous times by the SEC chose the ACC's slightly better offer.
Note that under the market model (before smart TV's) it only took 1 school to deliver a state's advertising for a carrier and they were paid by the population of the state. A second school was not as beneficial to the network unless it was on another conference's contract. Then the network got paid for both. In 2011 it was cable subscription fees for T3 rights and cable packages including ESPN channels which added the revenue. Now with smart TVs it is actual viewers, which has shifted decisions back to branding & quality matchups. In a way we have come full circle. Conferences' adding from 1987-92 were building content. Networks were beginning to build markets. We went through subscriptions and are now back to content.
What happens in realignment behind the scenes is seldom what is reported. Realignment skates the edges of tortuous interference. When something works out and a school joins the process is mutually sanitized. When a flirtation is broken off the conference will remain silent, and the school will aggrandize itself with its own gloss spread via local beat writers.
In 1990 the SEC planned to offer Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, a silent partner of Texas (Oklahoma), Florida State and Clemson. Texas backed off for many reasons including state politics, so Oklahoma faded as silently as they had been interested. A&M was stuck even though they wanted the move. Broyles wanted in. When Texas couldn't come Bowden opted for the ACC and Clemson never reached any serious levels of discussion but a Trustee there who was involved notified South Carolina who applied. In between FSU's acceptance of the ACC offer and South Carolina's acceptance Miami received an SEC visit.
So initially the grand plan whiffed on 5, landed 1, and substituted another. But Kramer still won out. We moved to 12 schools. Started the conference CCG and declared victory anyway. Now look at where we are. We have Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. We have South Carolina instead of Clemson, and we have Missouri as really the only non original objective.
If the SEC moves again it will be for North Carolina who will insist upon Duke, as they did when light discussions were held in 2011. We would likely show interest in a Virginia school. And as much as the SEC wants a second Florida school I would suspect knowing the SEC's history of how presidents view defectors and turn downs that we could look at Miami who was not offered and painted a favorable face after the visit, a conduct acceptable to all involved in realignment, or possibly South Florida, and both of those will be weighed against Kansas.
The only way FSU & Georgia Tech get a look will be if the B1G gets serious. And Clemson who didn't offend, is just in too small of a state to double dip.
It is why I firmly believe ESPN will attempt to gain 100% of the B12's rights. That way they can pay the ACC product they most want to appease more by moving them to the SEC and by merging the 11-12 members of the B12 with 9-8 members of the ACC they can keep the rest, and total control of the 3 conference regions for a modest bump for all. Clemson and FSU will be needed to anchor the merged conference's value.
/
The Raycom Proposed "Super Conference" in 1990. Could it have succeeded?
