(10-11-2017 04:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 03:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.

It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State

This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.