JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 37,903
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(04-28-2021 03:49 PM)PAW79 Wrote: (04-28-2021 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-28-2021 12:35 PM)PAW79 Wrote: (04-26-2021 09:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-26-2021 09:03 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: With the new apportionment of the Congressional seats for the next ten years, I think that's going to influence where the Big Ten leaders might go. If that's the case then getting into the state of NC might become a necessary move. Especially when we have no realistic chance of getting into the larger Southern states. Taking in Missouri in exchange for giving up Nebraska is an acceptable move in that it would potentially reenergize both fan bases. Missouri is a "border" state, so the conference's influence could extend transregionally, if that's even a word.
If the SEC gave up Missouri to the Big 10, had Vanderbilt opt for a partial status , and landed North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Florida State, then I think that would be just about perfect for us.
Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida State, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
*Vanderbilt
Big 10:
Indiana, Maryland, N.C. State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia Tech
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Those make for some pretty nice divisions. With all of Virginia and North Carolina accounted for except Wake Forest the rest is pretty easy.
Big 12:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech
Boston College, Clemson, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
*Notre Dame
This proposed Big 12 conference would almost certainly garner a much better TV contract than either the existing ACC or Big 12 conferences have and would allow the schools in this new conference to close the monetary gap that currently exists with the SEC and Big 10. The new conference would also create some exciting new matchups and reestablish a big traditional rivalry game from the past (OU-Neb).
Even though the money aspect would improve drastically and there would be some exciting potential games with teams like Texas, OU, and Neb, speaking purely from a Clemson perspective, this new conference would be a veritable wasteland. There is only one traditional rival (Ga Tech) and they are not even in Clemson’s pod. WVU would likely be a decent rival but BC, UL, Pitt, and Syracuse do not now nor will they ever consistently pique the interest of most Clemson fans. I think this new conference alignment would more likely than not have a very negative impact on Clemson’s recruiting in the three states that are its prime recruiting grounds – NC, GA, and FL. Other than Ga Tech, the travel involved for Clemson would be horrendous. Below are the driving distances (miles) from Clemson to each of their proposed new conference mates.
Pod 1
UL 439
WVU 492
Pitt 579
Syr 856
BC 964
AVG = 666 miles (can you say omen!)
Pod 2
GT 121
Mia 728
TCU 941
Bay 949
UT 1,049
TT 1,250
AVG = 840 miles
Pod 3
KU 950
OU 982
OSU 982
KSU 1,029
ISU 1,040
NU 1,103
AVG = 1,014 miles
Overall AVG = 850 miles
Only one school (Ga Tech) is within reasonable driving distance while only two other schools (WVU and UL) can be driven to within 7 to 8 hours – this would definitely impact attendance (home and away). For reference, UGA is a school that would be a natural rival for Clemson and is located only 79 miles away. While these distances may not be insurmountable for the football program, they would most certainly be a major burden for all of the other sports.
The other issue I see is that Clemson's in state rival (South Carolina) will continue to be in another conference. With these larger conferences, you will almost certainly have to go to at least 9 if not 10 conference games. This will either negatively impact Clemson's ability to schedule SC and keep 8 home games every year or require us to drop them from our schedule. Of course, other schools would be in the same boat (UGA/GT, UK/UL, VT/UVA, UNC/NCSU, etc.)
An increased payout is definitely needed and would be most welcomed. Potential matchups with UT, OU, and Neb would generate tons of excitement. However, given the choice to remain in the current ACC or move to this new “frankenconference”, I think most Clemson faculty, admins/coaches, and fans would opt to stay with the current ACC.
If in the end there is an ACC to stay with, yes. The monetary difference is going to be massive. There is some speculation that Saban may not stick around for all of the coming changes. If so, Momma will be calling Dabo.
I'd put Clemson in the SEC if we moved to 3 conferences of 20. I'd place most of the Big 12 with the PAC, most of the Southern ACC with the SEC, and most of the Northerly ACC with the Big 10.
Notre Dame would have to join in full:
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame and Syracuse to the Big 10.
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, (Miami/Louisville), N.C. State, Virginia Tech to the SEC.
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, and (Baylor/TCU) to the PAC.
T.C.U. is probably preferable to the PAC because it's seminary is independent of the Undergraduate and other graduate studies, Baylor's is not.
If Vanderbilt stays after all of the coming changes then Louisville is probably preferable to Miami, if Vanderbilt leaves Miami as a private takes their spot.
B.C., Wake Forest, Baylor, West Virginia (Vandy or Miami) would be the 5 out. Miami's academics might edge out Louisville and their numbers should edge out Georgia Tech, but Georgia will be obligated to protect Tech whether they want to or not because the State has made that clear in past realignment anxieties, and Louisville has strong business numbers, but Kentucky is less concerned about them than Georgia is about Tech. It would be an interesting way to balance competition so it probably won't happen but at least it would be regional and likely would not leave any division Satan's distance for average travel.
JR - thanks for the quick reply. A few comments on your comments and one last observation.
1. The money difference is massive now and appears that it will only get worse. As the only school in the ACC who is totally and completely “all in” for football (apologies FSU and VT), this monetary difference will ultimately override the concerns I pointed out. If an option is presented that reduces or eliminates the gap, I can see them exercising that option regardless of the other issues it presents and their disdain for that option if this truly is the only way to stay competitive in football.
2. I think its clear that ND will not be joining any conference unless presented with much the same scenario as Clemson – they will join if that is the only option to save their football program and allow access to national championships.
3. I am not so sure Dabo will move if/when Momma comes calling. It could happen but at this point in time I would say it is not anywhere close to the done deal many people think it will be. Dabo has said he is completely happy at Clemson and that he does not want to move - he has so far shown to be a man of his word. He makes plenty of money now so I don’t think a big raise would lure him away. He has said “never say never” so a move cannot be ruled out. Of course, any future changes to Clemson’s commitment to football and/or athletic administration would impact his decision.
4. Clemson is in no man’s land. The ACC stinks in football and I don’t see any drastic improvement in the near or distant future. The money difference is significant and only going to get worse. If Clemson stays in the ACC, eventually this difference will catch up to them. While Clemson offers a lot to a conference from a football standpoint, they are just middling at best when it comes to academics and basketball – the other items often cited when looking at conference membership realignments. Clemson does not offer enough solely from a football standpoint to entice the SEC to offer membership and their BB / academics do nothing for the SEC. The Big 10 is a non-starter due to academics (AAU). So, as much as Clemson wants to be part of a conference that prioritizes football, they have zero leverage. It would really be disheartening to see a school like Duke who doesn’t give a rip about football (and probably never will) get a golden ticket to the SEC while Clemson is left behind in some pieced together conference. Oh well, life is not fair!
Also ……. was “My Dad’s advice to me” intended for me specifically or just in general??
In 1992 the SEC's first six targets were Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, an unnamed friend of Texas (Oklahoma) and Florida State and Clemson. Texas dropped out taking OU with them, A&M was stuck without political cover but maintained conversations, I believe that ESPN the entity the SEC used to value FSU used that information to help the ACC which they were interested in acquiring beat the SEC by a day to FSU with an offer just slightly better than ours so they would have a school in Florida that they had full access to, and this is more than a theory, but with much in realignment it can't be proved, so it's an allegation. Clemson was interested if FSU was. When they withdrew a Clemson Trustee or whatever you call them there phoned a friend of his who was in the same position for South Carolina, told them of our interest in expanding and they joined Arkansas as the pair. Arkansas joined because Broyles had gotten wind that Texas and Nebraska and Oklahoma were cooking up the Big 12 and that only 4 SWC schools would be moving and the Hogs weren't one of them.
So, had Texas and A&M said yes, and F.S.U. had followed it is likely that Clemson could have joined the SEC in 1992, and that quite possibly Arkansas and Oklahoma would have made it 16. Kramer was thinking big before settling for the 2 to get the CCG. I had family in on all of this at the time.
Clemson would be a solid addition for the SEC as a content driver, especially if they joined with Florida State since both South Carolina and Florida wanted their inclusion in 2010. The gentlemen's agreement Slive asked for is not what internet BS made it out to be. We had to have 2 new markets in 2010 to be able to renegotiate the contract. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement from South Carolina and Florida's president not to nominate Clemson and F.S.U. until the renegotiation clause was fulfilled. So A&M and Missouri (in for OU which insisted OSU come as well) were the two. Slive's promise was that in the future nothing but profitability would be the guide and no prohibitions on in state rivals would be required. That's very different from the blackball crap which never happened, and wouldn't among presidents. F.S.U. would add a little o the SEC even today because it would give the SEC advertising rate leverage for Florida. Clemson, if they stay good would give us a content multiplier meaning that every time they played an SEC team of substance we would have a solid national ratings number which in turn provides a higher ad rate. Clemson joining would be a wash. But if Texas and Oklahoma weren't available Clemson and F.S.U. would give the SEC the hammer on all Southeastern football. So from a branding perspective the two most SEC like programs left in the Southeast would be members. And that's nothing to sneeze at.
So it's not impossible. It's been considered before, and even announced by ESPN on a crawler after the Maryland defection (another story for when I have more time) and then pulled back by ESPN because N.D. wasn't going to affiliate if the football first schools were gone. So if something happens to the ACC it's quite possible still.
|
|