(10-12-2017 04:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(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.

I can see that you must have gotten the same information.

Hardly, the last guy to lay out that scenario was the Dude when he was discussing his stuff with a hidden source from Bucknuts.

I just simply agree that at some point if the disparity continues to grow with regard to revenue that it is reasonable to assume that the Big 10 and SEC will become more alluring to the present members of the ACC. And if branding within each sport continues to play a major factor in viewer participation and the market continues to reward brand on brand competition in any sport, then it makes sense that one day the SEC will earn more and pay more for football brands and the Big 10 will earn more and pay more for both football and basketball brands, but won't pay as much as the SEC for football brands.

When that day comes Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and possibly N.C. State will be of primary interest to the SEC. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame will likely be of interest to the Big 10.

It's also why the Big 12 is such a complicated issue. I strongly suspect that the Big 10 or SEC would each be wary of extending more than two slots to present Big 12 schools at the risk of losing future slots for key targets within the ACC.

It is why I'm thinking more and more about the future creation of a conference of those schools left behind in the Big 12 and ACC which would keep P status but obviously would not be the beneficiary of the highest payouts, although they would likely make about what the Big 12 makes now only with a network.

But if that happens then the SEC and Big 10 only have two slots left each because we are likely looking at 16. It is why I posted the new thread on the possible division that way. There are many different combinations that would work if that approach was taken.

But if the Big 10 and SEC could only take two each from the ACC who would they pick and why is a great question to ask.

There are huge reasons why the Big 10 has long been after Notre Dame. It is the only school that consistently digs into their shares in the largest Northern cities. Landing Notre Dame gives them greater advertising leverage in those markets because with Notre Dame in pocket there is not another alternative for advertisers to get into those markets on Saturday's without paying the Big 10 top dollar. And if Notre Dame is one of the choices then taking a long road into the South is out of the question so they go for the school that wraps up their desires in the Northeast, Virginia / or Virginia Tech.

With the SEC the big question would be brand or markets. If it is brand then Florida State and Clemson would be the priorities. If it is markets then whichever Virginia school didn't head to the Big 10 and North Carolina would be the priorities. I could even see North Carolina and Duke being the pairing. It will really depend on what the focus is at the time. Now I'm not saying any of these schools want either the Big 10 or SEC but I am saying money, much more of it, will be the catalyst.

Then Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and perhaps Iowa State can head to the PAC.

If that happens everyone else, without perhaps Baylor, forms a pretty decent conference of their own and that solves a lot of problems.

The most secure 3 conferences get what they want.
If Markets mixed with Branding it would be:
Notre Dame and Virginia to the Big 10
North Carolina and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State to the PAC

And a new conference is born:
Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Duke, Louisville, N.C. State, Wake Forest

With the exception of West Virginia that is a conference of little brothers and privates.

Now if the moves are simply a matter of economics then literally anything could happen, conference sizes could swell to almost league size, and the one that generates the most money would likely win the most brands. I can't see how that would be healthy to any of the sports long term. Right now the SEC generates the largest amount of money and it's not really that close. 7.3 billion to 5.7 billion to 3.7 billion to 3.0 billion to 2.9 billion (with N.D. as a partial).

I have to think that nobody really wants that gap to grow. The Big 10 and SEC don't really desire to be sprawling monstrosities. The PAC really doesn't want to have to grow now but they need the revenue and the markets. And the top brands in the ACC will want to be paid accordingly, particularly the top brands in the top states.

It's just human nature to want more, especially when so many revenue streams are no longer as dependable as they once were. So the suggested scenario sustains the level of status and pay (or enhances it) for 64 of the 65 schools now enjoying it. It allows the strong some reasonable but measured growth. And it provides equal access to the post season play for all. And it does so while still allowing the economic mobility that a few top schools would like. With a guaranteed slot for secondary state schools, schools like Texas and Oklahoma, North Carolina and Virginia would find the latitude to advance without fear they were condemning their fellow state schools to less.