(10-31-2021 08:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 05:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 12:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 12:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  South Carolina has been in "talks" to rejoin the ACC for the last 50 years. The level of mutual interest wanes and ebbs over time. It's a conversation that never ends although I expect nothing to come of it because there are so many interested parties with somewhat divergent interests.

South Carolina brought in former North Carolina football player Eric Hyman as their athletic director to negotiate with the ACC.
He was seen so many times in Greensboro and in Chapel Hill during 2010-11 that the South Carolina administration made up a story to hide his true mission, it suggested that Carolina was trying to steal Hyman from the Gamecocks as their AD, and made a huge deal about giving Hyman a $50,000 raise to keep him in Columbia.
When the talks broke down a few months later and Hyman was no longer useful as a go-between, he (Hyman) packed his bags, left Columbia, and accepted the Athletic Director's job at Texas A&M.

If South Carolina ever was or ever would be interested in rejoining the ACC then it would be because they had wholly given up on competing at the highest levels and simply didn't want to work towards funding the AD to the requisite degree.

They literally have not one single other motivation to go to the ACC.

You have that totally backward. If winning is more important than money they come home, if money is more important that winning they stay in the SEC.

Come home?

South Carolina left the ACC in 1971. They joined in 1953 which means they were there less than 20 years. I know 50 years seems like a blink of an eye for some folks, but that's a long time. Heck, they were independent longer than they were in the ACC.

South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992 and that was nearly 30 years ago.

By contrast, Georgia Tech left the SEC in 1964. They were the last team to leave the SEC. The last team to leave the ACC was Maryland and they certainly weren't the last team to entertain it openly. Heck, folks from Florida State were talking about it publicly a few weeks ago.

The SEC just added 2 of the top economic powers in the entire country, 2 schools that have never had any previous relationship with the SEC. The teams petitioning the ACC for entry include the likes of West Virginia and South Florida. No offense to them.

But y'all let me know the next time winning a few extra games against a couple of teams from a neighboring state is enough to pay the bills. So yes, they want the money.

And Clemson doesn't really have anything to do with it. Sure, South Carolina is directly competing against Clemson, but they are also competing against every major program in the Southeast for dollars, recruits, and media exposure. They will continue to compete against these very same SEC schools whether they play in the SEC or not. Would you rather compete against the best with a superior budget or an inferior budget?

If you think winning games against inferior competition just to inflate your record( and thus give yourself a better shot at a title) is a sustainable strategy then you may want to reconsider. Clemson has been a bit lucky the last few years, but they are clearly in decline. You could tell it a couple of years ago when they got smoked by LSU in the title game. You can certainly tell it this year with fewer impact players on the field. How did they get into a situation where they have fewer impact players? See, the first part of this conversation.

If you'd like to understand that point then ask your friends in Tallahassee about the long term effects of smaller budgets.

Or perhaps ask yourself why dominant schools in a league that was already bringing down more revenue than the ACC would choose a richer league despite the fact all the geniuses online said they were better off in a league that was easier to win.

No, I do not have it backwards.

I guess the only thing left to do is actually paint a picture.

IMO, the B1G is hurting itself athletically because of what I suspect is academic snobbery. I think if they wanted to form an alliance, they picked the wrong partners. I think they should ally with the SEC, not oppose them.

If I were a Czar who could make this happen, I would have the B1G expand to 16 to match the SEC by adding Virginia Tech and NC State. These are solid academic schools, and among the best in the ACC in fan support/attendance. They do have strong ties to the ACC, but not as strong as Virginia, Carolina and Duke. They could be separated from the herd.

Those two would be added to the B1G East, along with Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue. The West would consist of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Here's where the Alliance comes in. Let the current CFP contract run its course, and when it expires do not renew it. Not just change it - do away with it entirely. Instead, hold an 8 team post-season tournament with just B1G and SEC teams.

The SEC West regular season champ hosts the SEC East runnerup, all based on only division round robin records. The East champ hosts the West runnerup. The B1G does the same. All games are played on the home field of the division champs. Each conference negotiates its own media deal for these first round games. The first round winners are declared Conference Co-champions and advance to the semifinals.

In the semifinal round, the higher ranked SEC co-champ plays the lower ranked B1G champ, and vice versa. These games are played at the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl on the Saturday before New Year's. The Rose Bowl matches the PAC champion and their choice of the B1G's first round losers in their traditional 4PM EST time slot on New Year's Day. The Orange Bowl gets the other B1G first round loser to face the ACC champ. The Fiesta Bowl pairs the first choice of the SEC losers with the most attractive team not in either the SEC or B1G. The Sugar matches the other SEC loser and the Big 12 champion.

The Peach Bowl winner plays the Cotton Bowl winner at a site selected by bids for the Alliance Championship. Then, in lieu of a CFP, the AP and Coaches conduct their beauty contest to declare a mythical national champion, just like in the good old days.

This arrangement addresses Presidents' concerns about the season getting too long - only two schools would play as many as 15 games. None of the Alliance tournament games would get in the way of final exams. And while there's a good chance the total revenues from this arrangement would be less than a 12 team CFP would bring, nearly all of it would go into the SEC and B1G's coffers meaning they wouldn't give up any revenue. It's the other 100 schools outside the Alliance that would get considerably less.

This is capitalistic greed at its finest. It's the American way.

(11-01-2021 08:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the B1G is hurting itself athletically because of what I suspect is academic snobbery. I think if they wanted to form an alliance, they picked the wrong partners. I think they should ally with the SEC, not oppose them.

If I were a Czar who could make this happen, I would have the B1G expand to 16 to match the SEC by adding Virginia Tech and NC State. These are solid academic schools, and among the best in the ACC in fan support/attendance. They do have strong ties to the ACC, but not as strong as Virginia, Carolina and Duke. They could be separated from the herd.

Those two would be added to the B1G East, along with Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue. The West would consist of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Here's where the Alliance comes in. Let the current CFP contract run its course, and when it expires do not renew it. Not just change it - do away with it entirely. Instead, hold an 8 team post-season tournament with just B1G and SEC teams.

The SEC West regular season champ hosts the SEC East runnerup, all based on only division round robin records. The East champ hosts the West runnerup. The B1G does the same. All games are played on the home field of the division champs. Each conference negotiates its own media deal for these first round games. The first round winners are declared Conference Co-champions and advance to the semifinals.

In the semifinal round, the higher ranked SEC co-champ plays the lower ranked B1G champ, and vice versa. These games are played at the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl on the Saturday before New Year's. The Rose Bowl matches the PAC champion and their choice of the B1G's first round losers in their traditional 4PM EST time slot on New Year's Day. The Orange Bowl gets the other B1G first round loser to face the ACC champ. The Fiesta Bowl pairs the first choice of the SEC losers with the most attractive team not in either the SEC or B1G. The Sugar matches the other SEC loser and the Big 12 champion.

The Peach Bowl winner plays the Cotton Bowl winner at a site selected by bids for the Alliance Championship. Then, in lieu of a CFP, the AP and Coaches conduct their beauty contest to declare a mythical national champion, just like in the good old days.

This arrangement addresses Presidents' concerns about the season getting too long - only two schools would play as many as 15 games. None of the Alliance tournament games would get in the way of final exams. And while there's a good chance the total revenues from this arrangement would be less than a 12 team CFP would bring, nearly all of it would go into the SEC and B1G's coffers meaning they wouldn't give up any revenue. It's the other 100 schools outside the Alliance that would get considerably less.

This is capitalistic greed at its finest. It's the American way.

I don’t know where you studied economics, but the proposal above gets an “F” for its understanding of capitalism and football.

If you are the football Czar, you never exclude championship level teams such as Clemson, FSU and USC. You can’t create a marketable championship by purposefully excluding the teams that frequently win the championships. If you exclude the best, you can’t legitimately claim to be the best. Second, you are excluding the better teams while allowing perennial bottom-dwellers (such as Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.) to have no incentive to compete. This could be a result of nepotism or parochialism…but it has nothing to do with greed, nor capitalism.

The B1G could have a blind-eye due to academic snobbery. Some beneficial economic solutions that are blind to academic rank would be to expand with ND & VT; or FSU & Clemson. If capitalist greed is the objective, then the B1G needs to kick-out Rutgers and Northwestern from the conference.

(11-01-2021 02:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 08:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the B1G is hurting itself athletically because of what I suspect is academic snobbery. I think if they wanted to form an alliance, they picked the wrong partners. I think they should ally with the SEC, not oppose them.

If I were a Czar who could make this happen, I would have the B1G expand to 16 to match the SEC by adding Virginia Tech and NC State. These are solid academic schools, and among the best in the ACC in fan support/attendance. They do have strong ties to the ACC, but not as strong as Virginia, Carolina and Duke. They could be separated from the herd.

Those two would be added to the B1G East, along with Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue. The West would consist of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Here's where the Alliance comes in. Let the current CFP contract run its course, and when it expires do not renew it. Not just change it - do away with it entirely. Instead, hold an 8 team post-season tournament with just B1G and SEC teams.

The SEC West regular season champ hosts the SEC East runnerup, all based on only division round robin records. The East champ hosts the West runnerup. The B1G does the same. All games are played on the home field of the division champs. Each conference negotiates its own media deal for these first round games. The first round winners are declared Conference Co-champions and advance to the semifinals.

In the semifinal round, the higher ranked SEC co-champ plays the lower ranked B1G champ, and vice versa. These games are played at the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl on the Saturday before New Year's. The Rose Bowl matches the PAC champion and their choice of the B1G's first round losers in their traditional 4PM EST time slot on New Year's Day. The Orange Bowl gets the other B1G first round loser to face the ACC champ. The Fiesta Bowl pairs the first choice of the SEC losers with the most attractive team not in either the SEC or B1G. The Sugar matches the other SEC loser and the Big 12 champion.

The Peach Bowl winner plays the Cotton Bowl winner at a site selected by bids for the Alliance Championship. Then, in lieu of a CFP, the AP and Coaches conduct their beauty contest to declare a mythical national champion, just like in the good old days.

This arrangement addresses Presidents' concerns about the season getting too long - only two schools would play as many as 15 games. None of the Alliance tournament games would get in the way of final exams. And while there's a good chance the total revenues from this arrangement would be less than a 12 team CFP would bring, nearly all of it would go into the SEC and B1G's coffers meaning they wouldn't give up any revenue. It's the other 100 schools outside the Alliance that would get considerably less.

This is capitalistic greed at its finest. It's the American way.

I don’t know where you studied economics, but the proposal above gets an “F” for its understanding of capitalism and football.

If you are the football Czar, you never exclude championship level teams such as Clemson, FSU and USC. You can’t create a marketable championship by purposefully excluding the teams that frequently win the championships. If you exclude the best, you can’t legitimately claim to be the best. Second, you are excluding the better teams while allowing perennial bottom-dwellers (such as Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.) to have no incentive to compete. This could be a result of nepotism or parochialism…but it has nothing to do with greed, nor capitalism.

The B1G could have a blind-eye due to academic snobbery. Some beneficial economic solutions that are blind to academic rank would be to expand with ND & VT; or FSU & Clemson. If capitalist greed is the objective, then the B1G needs to kick-out Rutgers and Northwestern from the conference.

I wasn't trying to be the football Czar - just the B1G/SEC Alliance Czar. I don't care if we can legitimately claim to be the best in the FBS. I'm just controlling the post season by dominating all six NY6 bowls and hogging the money for myself (and my ally, the SEC).

Here's what this would accomplish.

Our alliance would receive half of the revenue from the four meaningless New Years Day bowls, and no other conference will get more than one eighth. We would also get 100% of the revenue from seven much more compelling Alliance tournament games while other conferences get zero. We would have effectively separated ourselves from the rest of the FBS without having to formally split from it. We would have denied the champions of the other three power conferences (and Notre Dame) any opportunity to get a signature win in the postseason because they would only get to play our third and fourth best teams. Because of this, even though there would be no CFP championship to win, I'd bet our champion would be voted #1 by the AP and Coaches at least half the time anyway, and maybe as often as two thirds of the time. But that's not the goal - that's lagniappe. That's icing on the cake, which we would get to both have and eat it too.

(11-01-2021 03:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 02:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 08:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the B1G is hurting itself athletically because of what I suspect is academic snobbery. I think if they wanted to form an alliance, they picked the wrong partners. I think they should ally with the SEC, not oppose them.

If I were a Czar who could make this happen, I would have the B1G expand to 16 to match the SEC by adding Virginia Tech and NC State. These are solid academic schools, and among the best in the ACC in fan support/attendance. They do have strong ties to the ACC, but not as strong as Virginia, Carolina and Duke. They could be separated from the herd.

Those two would be added to the B1G East, along with Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue. The West would consist of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Here's where the Alliance comes in. Let the current CFP contract run its course, and when it expires do not renew it. Not just change it - do away with it entirely. Instead, hold an 8 team post-season tournament with just B1G and SEC teams.

The SEC West regular season champ hosts the SEC East runnerup, all based on only division round robin records. The East champ hosts the West runnerup. The B1G does the same. All games are played on the home field of the division champs. Each conference negotiates its own media deal for these first round games. The first round winners are declared Conference Co-champions and advance to the semifinals.

In the semifinal round, the higher ranked SEC co-champ plays the lower ranked B1G champ, and vice versa. These games are played at the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl on the Saturday before New Year's. The Rose Bowl matches the PAC champion and their choice of the B1G's first round losers in their traditional 4PM EST time slot on New Year's Day. The Orange Bowl gets the other B1G first round loser to face the ACC champ. The Fiesta Bowl pairs the first choice of the SEC losers with the most attractive team not in either the SEC or B1G. The Sugar matches the other SEC loser and the Big 12 champion.

The Peach Bowl winner plays the Cotton Bowl winner at a site selected by bids for the Alliance Championship. Then, in lieu of a CFP, the AP and Coaches conduct their beauty contest to declare a mythical national champion, just like in the good old days.

This arrangement addresses Presidents' concerns about the season getting too long - only two schools would play as many as 15 games. None of the Alliance tournament games would get in the way of final exams. And while there's a good chance the total revenues from this arrangement would be less than a 12 team CFP would bring, nearly all of it would go into the SEC and B1G's coffers meaning they wouldn't give up any revenue. It's the other 100 schools outside the Alliance that would get considerably less.

This is capitalistic greed at its finest. It's the American way.

I don’t know where you studied economics, but the proposal above gets an “F” for its understanding of capitalism and football.

If you are the football Czar, you never exclude championship level teams such as Clemson, FSU and USC. You can’t create a marketable championship by purposefully excluding the teams that frequently win the championships. If you exclude the best, you can’t legitimately claim to be the best. Second, you are excluding the better teams while allowing perennial bottom-dwellers (such as Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.) to have no incentive to compete. This could be a result of nepotism or parochialism…but it has nothing to do with greed, nor capitalism.

The B1G could have a blind-eye due to academic snobbery. Some beneficial economic solutions that are blind to academic rank would be to expand with ND & VT; or FSU & Clemson. If capitalist greed is the objective, then the B1G needs to kick-out Rutgers and Northwestern from the conference.

I wasn't trying to be the football Czar - just the B1G/SEC Alliance Czar. I don't care if we can legitimately claim to be the best in the FBS. I'm just controlling the post season by dominating all six NY6 bowls and hogging the money for myself (and my ally, the SEC).

Here's what this would accomplish.

Our alliance would receive half of the revenue from the four meaningless New Years Day bowls, and no other conference will get more than one eighth. We would also get 100% of the revenue from seven much more compelling Alliance tournament games while other conferences get zero. We would have effectively separated ourselves from the rest of the FBS without having to formally split from it. We would have denied the champions of the other three power conferences (and Notre Dame) any opportunity to get a signature win in the postseason because they would only get to play our third and fourth best teams. Because of this, even though there would be no CFP championship to win, I'd bet our champion would be voted #1 by the AP and Coaches at least half the time anyway, and maybe as often as two thirds of the time. But that's not the goal - that's lagniappe. That's icing on the cake, which we would get to both have and eat it too.

Doesn’t matter whether you’re the B1G & SEC Czar, or the FBS Czar. If you’re trying to make the most money, my points still stand. FWIW, a money-making collaboration between the B1G and SEC already exists…it’s the CFP.

If the B1G and SEC extend the current collaboration to an exclusive post-season Alliance they won’t make more money than the current (broader & inclusive) CFP. This B1G & SEC Alliance would not be about greed nor capitalism; it would be mercantilism…The B1G & SEC Alliance could ensure that their revenues are higher than other conference revenues.

(11-01-2021 04:58 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 03:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 02:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 08:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the B1G is hurting itself athletically because of what I suspect is academic snobbery. I think if they wanted to form an alliance, they picked the wrong partners. I think they should ally with the SEC, not oppose them.

If I were a Czar who could make this happen, I would have the B1G expand to 16 to match the SEC by adding Virginia Tech and NC State. These are solid academic schools, and among the best in the ACC in fan support/attendance. They do have strong ties to the ACC, but not as strong as Virginia, Carolina and Duke. They could be separated from the herd.

Those two would be added to the B1G East, along with Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue. The West would consist of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Here's where the Alliance comes in. Let the current CFP contract run its course, and when it expires do not renew it. Not just change it - do away with it entirely. Instead, hold an 8 team post-season tournament with just B1G and SEC teams.

The SEC West regular season champ hosts the SEC East runnerup, all based on only division round robin records. The East champ hosts the West runnerup. The B1G does the same. All games are played on the home field of the division champs. Each conference negotiates its own media deal for these first round games. The first round winners are declared Conference Co-champions and advance to the semifinals.

In the semifinal round, the higher ranked SEC co-champ plays the lower ranked B1G champ, and vice versa. These games are played at the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl on the Saturday before New Year's. The Rose Bowl matches the PAC champion and their choice of the B1G's first round losers in their traditional 4PM EST time slot on New Year's Day. The Orange Bowl gets the other B1G first round loser to face the ACC champ. The Fiesta Bowl pairs the first choice of the SEC losers with the most attractive team not in either the SEC or B1G. The Sugar matches the other SEC loser and the Big 12 champion.

The Peach Bowl winner plays the Cotton Bowl winner at a site selected by bids for the Alliance Championship. Then, in lieu of a CFP, the AP and Coaches conduct their beauty contest to declare a mythical national champion, just like in the good old days.

This arrangement addresses Presidents' concerns about the season getting too long - only two schools would play as many as 15 games. None of the Alliance tournament games would get in the way of final exams. And while there's a good chance the total revenues from this arrangement would be less than a 12 team CFP would bring, nearly all of it would go into the SEC and B1G's coffers meaning they wouldn't give up any revenue. It's the other 100 schools outside the Alliance that would get considerably less.

This is capitalistic greed at its finest. It's the American way.

I don’t know where you studied economics, but the proposal above gets an “F” for its understanding of capitalism and football.

If you are the football Czar, you never exclude championship level teams such as Clemson, FSU and USC. You can’t create a marketable championship by purposefully excluding the teams that frequently win the championships. If you exclude the best, you can’t legitimately claim to be the best. Second, you are excluding the better teams while allowing perennial bottom-dwellers (such as Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.) to have no incentive to compete. This could be a result of nepotism or parochialism…but it has nothing to do with greed, nor capitalism.

The B1G could have a blind-eye due to academic snobbery. Some beneficial economic solutions that are blind to academic rank would be to expand with ND & VT; or FSU & Clemson. If capitalist greed is the objective, then the B1G needs to kick-out Rutgers and Northwestern from the conference.

I wasn't trying to be the football Czar - just the B1G/SEC Alliance Czar. I don't care if we can legitimately claim to be the best in the FBS. I'm just controlling the post season by dominating all six NY6 bowls and hogging the money for myself (and my ally, the SEC).

Here's what this would accomplish.

Our alliance would receive half of the revenue from the four meaningless New Years Day bowls, and no other conference will get more than one eighth. We would also get 100% of the revenue from seven much more compelling Alliance tournament games while other conferences get zero. We would have effectively separated ourselves from the rest of the FBS without having to formally split from it. We would have denied the champions of the other three power conferences (and Notre Dame) any opportunity to get a signature win in the postseason because they would only get to play our third and fourth best teams. Because of this, even though there would be no CFP championship to win, I'd bet our champion would be voted #1 by the AP and Coaches at least half the time anyway, and maybe as often as two thirds of the time. But that's not the goal - that's lagniappe. That's icing on the cake, which we would get to both have and eat it too.

Doesn’t matter whether you’re the B1G & SEC Czar, or the FBS Czar. If you’re trying to make the most money, my points still stand. FWIW, a money-making collaboration between the B1G and SEC already exists…it’s the CFP.

If the B1G and SEC extend the current collaboration to an exclusive post-season Alliance they won’t make more money than the current (broader & inclusive) CFP. This B1G & SEC Alliance would not be about greed nor capitalism; it would be mercantilism…The B1G & SEC Alliance could ensure that their revenues are higher than other conference revenues.

Talk about your faulty logic! The SEC and Big Ten are the two highest paid conferences. There are no additions other conferences can make to come close to them in revenue, let alone catch them. Therefore if they collaborate to improve their market reach, number of viewers, and revenue they are guilty of mercantilism? It's called economic synergy and is a logical move if you are to enhance what you offer in a consumer driven industry. What kind of Woke Maoist Economics do they teach at Virginia?

Economics and economists are worthless. They teach people to risk their money in predictable ways based upon past models and current trends and past performance. CEO's call them suckers and PT Barnum reminds us one is born every minute. Demographics tell you where people are headed, not just where they've been. You make more money if you know where you are headed and why. Playing stocks based on what Universities teach is like betting on games that were played yesterday but without your knowledge, but with the bookie holding the results. Good luck with that!

KenD makes a valid point in terms of what could be potentially done. It won't be, until.....the SEC and Big 10 have finished shaping their respective conferences and allowing the economic deficits of the PAC 12, ACC and new Big 12 to erode and pressure their best brands into relocation, weaken further the lesser ones, and let natural attrition cull the field. You don't get sued if eventually a dozen or so schools elect to drop down. Then the SEC and B1G assimilate survivors and form 2 leagues inclusive of the best brands left from the other three, with the broadest reach market wise, and rules introduced to assist competitiveness. And, all done without legal entanglements. Then they collaborate on the sale of their rights. So, a synergistic rivalry becomes the tide that lifts all boats and it isn't mercantilism, just good business. Why buy out competition that is failing or can't afford to compete? Just let nature take its course and patiently wait. Right now there are too many agendas, too much confusion over a transition to pay for play, and too many fingers in the pie which belong to those who only want to eat a slice and don't harvest the fruit, prepare it, come up with a winning recipe, or create an appealing and appetizing product.

The interim is a winnowing which is exactly what free enterprise is supposed to do. Right now (1983 to date) college sports is still under the hangover of NCAA socialism and the quagmire it created by lumping schools of all sizes and means together, which isn't natural in nature, or in a free market!

It sincerely appalls me that so many decent, ethical, and apt young people are being taught only how to be a cog in a system which will impersonally spit you out when age makes you a liability to their group plan, and never teach you to be self directed. In short the vast majority of my grandchildren are being taught how to ultimately fail having had a short term limited opportunity in their young adulthood. It's a Faustian bargain and BS economics and corporate loyalty are 2 of the key components.

And by the way the attrition in college sports is going to be rational and mild by comparison to what is coming in higher education as a whole. I've never been happier to be retired. It's going to be brutal.

AllTide,

Since the eras of conferences began in 1921, South Carolina has shared a conference with Bama, Auburn, MSU, UK, TN, UD, Ole Miss, and Vandy. They shared a conference with UNC, NC State, and Clemson, for 50 years. 42 years in the case of Duke. You of course remember the old Southern Conference and its 23 schools.

From a football standpoint SC has played the following schools -

Clemson - 113 times
Georgia - 71 times
NC State and UNC - 58 times
WF - 56 times
Duke - 44 times
Vandy - 41 times
Tennessee - 40 times

Obviously SC judges its home to be the states of SC, NC, TN, and Georgia. This is before any discussion of basketball.

I'm not saying SC is a poor fit in the SEC, but I don't judge their fit to be as good as TAMU or Arkansas.

Mizzou's real rivals are in the Big 10. South Carolina's real rivals are in the ACC. Now, bring Clemson, UNC, and NC State into the SEC, and yes then SC is "home".

(11-01-2021 06:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 04:58 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 03:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 02:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 08:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the B1G is hurting itself athletically because of what I suspect is academic snobbery. I think if they wanted to form an alliance, they picked the wrong partners. I think they should ally with the SEC, not oppose them.

If I were a Czar who could make this happen, I would have the B1G expand to 16 to match the SEC by adding Virginia Tech and NC State. These are solid academic schools, and among the best in the ACC in fan support/attendance. They do have strong ties to the ACC, but not as strong as Virginia, Carolina and Duke. They could be separated from the herd.

Those two would be added to the B1G East, along with Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue. The West would consist of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Here's where the Alliance comes in. Let the current CFP contract run its course, and when it expires do not renew it. Not just change it - do away with it entirely. Instead, hold an 8 team post-season tournament with just B1G and SEC teams.

The SEC West regular season champ hosts the SEC East runnerup, all based on only division round robin records. The East champ hosts the West runnerup. The B1G does the same. All games are played on the home field of the division champs. Each conference negotiates its own media deal for these first round games. The first round winners are declared Conference Co-champions and advance to the semifinals.

In the semifinal round, the higher ranked SEC co-champ plays the lower ranked B1G champ, and vice versa. These games are played at the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl on the Saturday before New Year's. The Rose Bowl matches the PAC champion and their choice of the B1G's first round losers in their traditional 4PM EST time slot on New Year's Day. The Orange Bowl gets the other B1G first round loser to face the ACC champ. The Fiesta Bowl pairs the first choice of the SEC losers with the most attractive team not in either the SEC or B1G. The Sugar matches the other SEC loser and the Big 12 champion.

The Peach Bowl winner plays the Cotton Bowl winner at a site selected by bids for the Alliance Championship. Then, in lieu of a CFP, the AP and Coaches conduct their beauty contest to declare a mythical national champion, just like in the good old days.

This arrangement addresses Presidents' concerns about the season getting too long - only two schools would play as many as 15 games. None of the Alliance tournament games would get in the way of final exams. And while there's a good chance the total revenues from this arrangement would be less than a 12 team CFP would bring, nearly all of it would go into the SEC and B1G's coffers meaning they wouldn't give up any revenue. It's the other 100 schools outside the Alliance that would get considerably less.

This is capitalistic greed at its finest. It's the American way.

I don’t know where you studied economics, but the proposal above gets an “F” for its understanding of capitalism and football.

If you are the football Czar, you never exclude championship level teams such as Clemson, FSU and USC. You can’t create a marketable championship by purposefully excluding the teams that frequently win the championships. If you exclude the best, you can’t legitimately claim to be the best. Second, you are excluding the better teams while allowing perennial bottom-dwellers (such as Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.) to have no incentive to compete. This could be a result of nepotism or parochialism…but it has nothing to do with greed, nor capitalism.

The B1G could have a blind-eye due to academic snobbery. Some beneficial economic solutions that are blind to academic rank would be to expand with ND & VT; or FSU & Clemson. If capitalist greed is the objective, then the B1G needs to kick-out Rutgers and Northwestern from the conference.

I wasn't trying to be the football Czar - just the B1G/SEC Alliance Czar. I don't care if we can legitimately claim to be the best in the FBS. I'm just controlling the post season by dominating all six NY6 bowls and hogging the money for myself (and my ally, the SEC).

Here's what this would accomplish.

Our alliance would receive half of the revenue from the four meaningless New Years Day bowls, and no other conference will get more than one eighth. We would also get 100% of the revenue from seven much more compelling Alliance tournament games while other conferences get zero. We would have effectively separated ourselves from the rest of the FBS without having to formally split from it. We would have denied the champions of the other three power conferences (and Notre Dame) any opportunity to get a signature win in the postseason because they would only get to play our third and fourth best teams. Because of this, even though there would be no CFP championship to win, I'd bet our champion would be voted #1 by the AP and Coaches at least half the time anyway, and maybe as often as two thirds of the time. But that's not the goal - that's lagniappe. That's icing on the cake, which we would get to both have and eat it too.

Doesn’t matter whether you’re the B1G & SEC Czar, or the FBS Czar. If you’re trying to make the most money, my points still stand. FWIW, a money-making collaboration between the B1G and SEC already exists…it’s the CFP.

If the B1G and SEC extend the current collaboration to an exclusive post-season Alliance they won’t make more money than the current (broader & inclusive) CFP. This B1G & SEC Alliance would not be about greed nor capitalism; it would be mercantilism…The B1G & SEC Alliance could ensure that their revenues are higher than other conference revenues.

Talk about your faulty logic! The SEC and Big Ten are the two highest paid conferences. There are no additions other conferences can make to come close to them in revenue, let alone catch them. Therefore if they collaborate to improve their market reach, number of viewers, and revenue they are guilty of mercantilism? It's called economic synergy and is a logical move if you are to enhance what you offer in a consumer driven industry. What kind of Woke Maoist Economics do they teach at Virginia?

Economics and economists are worthless. They teach people to risk their money in predictable ways based upon past models and current trends and past performance. CEO's call them suckers and PT Barnum reminds us one is born every minute. Demographics tell you where people are headed, not just where they've been. You make more money if you know where you are headed and why. Playing stocks based on what Universities teach is like betting on games that were played yesterday but without your knowledge, but with the bookie holding the results. Good luck with that!

KenD makes a valid point in terms of what could be potentially done. It won't be, until.....the SEC and Big 10 have finished shaping their respective conferences and allowing the economic deficits of the PAC 12, ACC and new Big 12 to erode and pressure their best brands into relocation, weaken further the lesser ones, and let natural attrition cull the field. You don't get sued if eventually a dozen or so schools elect to drop down. Then the SEC and B1G assimilate survivors and form 2 leagues inclusive of the best brands left from the other three, with the broadest reach market wise, and rules introduced to assist competitiveness. And, all done without legal entanglements. Then they collaborate on the sale of their rights. So, a synergistic rivalry becomes the tide that lifts all boats and it isn't mercantilism, just good business. Why buy out competition that is failing or can't afford to compete? Just let nature take its course and patiently wait. Right now there are too many agendas, too much confusion over a transition to pay for play, and too many fingers in the pie which belong to those who only want to eat a slice and don't harvest the fruit, prepare it, come up with a winning recipe, or create an appealing and appetizing product.

The interim is a winnowing which is exactly what free enterprise is supposed to do. Right now (1983 to date) college sports is still under the hangover of NCAA socialism and the quagmire it created by lumping schools of all sizes and means together, which isn't natural in nature, or in a free market!

It sincerely appalls me that so many decent, ethical, and apt young people are being taught only how to be a cog in a system which will impersonally spit you out when age makes you a liability to their group plan, and never teach you to be self directed. In short the vast majority of my grandchildren are being taught how to ultimately fail having had a short term limited opportunity in their young adulthood. It's a Faustian bargain and BS economics and corporate loyalty are 2 of the key components.

And by the way the attrition in college sports is going to be rational and mild by comparison to what is coming in higher education as a whole. I've never been happier to be retired. It's going to be brutal.

Maybe you should re-read the entire post. I bolded the key mercantilist suggestion above: ken d proposed that the B1G & SEC form an Alliance, don’t participate in the CFP, and form their own exclusive postseason. If you honestly believe that making the playoffs the exclusive purview of the SEC & B1G will generate the most revenue, then SEC hubris has gotten the better of your sound business sense.

No doubt that Alabama and Ohio State will win more often in ken d and your proposal. Maybe you’ll even convince your regionalized audience that Alabama versus Rutgers playoff game is worth watching. Maybe Vanderbilt will actually be able to make your playoffs.

On the other hand, I believe that the excluded football powers (such FSU, Clemson, USC, Oregon) would actually expand the audience, nationalize the sport and generate more revenue for everyone.

FWIW - I have no concern if the SEC & B1G form an Alliance and do a breakaway, but I’m not convinced that it would be good business.

(11-01-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 06:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 04:58 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 03:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 02:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I don’t know where you studied economics, but the proposal above gets an “F” for its understanding of capitalism and football.

If you are the football Czar, you never exclude championship level teams such as Clemson, FSU and USC. You can’t create a marketable championship by purposefully excluding the teams that frequently win the championships. If you exclude the best, you can’t legitimately claim to be the best. Second, you are excluding the better teams while allowing perennial bottom-dwellers (such as Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.) to have no incentive to compete. This could be a result of nepotism or parochialism…but it has nothing to do with greed, nor capitalism.

The B1G could have a blind-eye due to academic snobbery. Some beneficial economic solutions that are blind to academic rank would be to expand with ND & VT; or FSU & Clemson. If capitalist greed is the objective, then the B1G needs to kick-out Rutgers and Northwestern from the conference.

I wasn't trying to be the football Czar - just the B1G/SEC Alliance Czar. I don't care if we can legitimately claim to be the best in the FBS. I'm just controlling the post season by dominating all six NY6 bowls and hogging the money for myself (and my ally, the SEC).

Here's what this would accomplish.

Our alliance would receive half of the revenue from the four meaningless New Years Day bowls, and no other conference will get more than one eighth. We would also get 100% of the revenue from seven much more compelling Alliance tournament games while other conferences get zero. We would have effectively separated ourselves from the rest of the FBS without having to formally split from it. We would have denied the champions of the other three power conferences (and Notre Dame) any opportunity to get a signature win in the postseason because they would only get to play our third and fourth best teams. Because of this, even though there would be no CFP championship to win, I'd bet our champion would be voted #1 by the AP and Coaches at least half the time anyway, and maybe as often as two thirds of the time. But that's not the goal - that's lagniappe. That's icing on the cake, which we would get to both have and eat it too.

Doesn’t matter whether you’re the B1G & SEC Czar, or the FBS Czar. If you’re trying to make the most money, my points still stand. FWIW, a money-making collaboration between the B1G and SEC already exists…it’s the CFP.

If the B1G and SEC extend the current collaboration to an exclusive post-season Alliance they won’t make more money than the current (broader & inclusive) CFP. This B1G & SEC Alliance would not be about greed nor capitalism; it would be mercantilism…The B1G & SEC Alliance could ensure that their revenues are higher than other conference revenues.

Talk about your faulty logic! The SEC and Big Ten are the two highest paid conferences. There are no additions other conferences can make to come close to them in revenue, let alone catch them. Therefore if they collaborate to improve their market reach, number of viewers, and revenue they are guilty of mercantilism? It's called economic synergy and is a logical move if you are to enhance what you offer in a consumer driven industry. What kind of Woke Maoist Economics do they teach at Virginia?

Economics and economists are worthless. They teach people to risk their money in predictable ways based upon past models and current trends and past performance. CEO's call them suckers and PT Barnum reminds us one is born every minute. Demographics tell you where people are headed, not just where they've been. You make more money if you know where you are headed and why. Playing stocks based on what Universities teach is like betting on games that were played yesterday but without your knowledge, but with the bookie holding the results. Good luck with that!

KenD makes a valid point in terms of what could be potentially done. It won't be, until.....the SEC and Big 10 have finished shaping their respective conferences and allowing the economic deficits of the PAC 12, ACC and new Big 12 to erode and pressure their best brands into relocation, weaken further the lesser ones, and let natural attrition cull the field. You don't get sued if eventually a dozen or so schools elect to drop down. Then the SEC and B1G assimilate survivors and form 2 leagues inclusive of the best brands left from the other three, with the broadest reach market wise, and rules introduced to assist competitiveness. And, all done without legal entanglements. Then they collaborate on the sale of their rights. So, a synergistic rivalry becomes the tide that lifts all boats and it isn't mercantilism, just good business. Why buy out competition that is failing or can't afford to compete? Just let nature take its course and patiently wait. Right now there are too many agendas, too much confusion over a transition to pay for play, and too many fingers in the pie which belong to those who only want to eat a slice and don't harvest the fruit, prepare it, come up with a winning recipe, or create an appealing and appetizing product.

The interim is a winnowing which is exactly what free enterprise is supposed to do. Right now (1983 to date) college sports is still under the hangover of NCAA socialism and the quagmire it created by lumping schools of all sizes and means together, which isn't natural in nature, or in a free market!

It sincerely appalls me that so many decent, ethical, and apt young people are being taught only how to be a cog in a system which will impersonally spit you out when age makes you a liability to their group plan, and never teach you to be self directed. In short the vast majority of my grandchildren are being taught how to ultimately fail having had a short term limited opportunity in their young adulthood. It's a Faustian bargain and BS economics and corporate loyalty are 2 of the key components.

And by the way the attrition in college sports is going to be rational and mild by comparison to what is coming in higher education as a whole. I've never been happier to be retired. It's going to be brutal.

Maybe you should re-read the entire post. I bolded the key mercantilist suggestion above: ken d proposed that the B1G & SEC form an Alliance, eliminate the CFP, and form their own exclusive postseason. If you honestly believe that making the playoffs the exclusive purview of the SEC & B1G, then SEC hubris has gotten the better of your sound business sense.

No doubt that Alabama and Ohio State will win more often in ken d and your proposal. Maybe you’ll even convince your regionalized audience that Alabama versus Rutgers playoff game is great television. Maybe Vanderbilt will actually be able to make your playoffs.

On the other hand, I believe that the excluded football powers (such FSU, Clemson, USC, Oregon) would actually expand the audience, nationalize the sport and generate more revenue for everyone.

FWIW - I have no concern if the SEC & B1G form an Alliance and do a breakaway, but I’m not convinced that it would be good business.

Where did I suggest Clemson and FSU or USC and Oregon would be left out? I find your comprehension wholly lacking and when you argue you can't resist setting up a straw man to tear down. You obviously never had, or grasped logic as you repeat this fallacy often. What did I say??? I said all the SEC and Big Ten need do is to let disparity trim the number of hands in the pie and absorb the rest and form 2 leagues.

And no I didn't miss one ridiculous word in your retort to KenD, nor did I miss his point about how the 2 could maximize revenue (which had sarcasm in it). I merely pointed out that no such merger or arrangement was needed. Market forces will take care of it quite well, as it has been doing to both the B12 and ACC and as it will inevitably do with the PAC. It's just that so far the geography of the PAC has provided a natural and costly inertia.

As I've noted for years, time, economic disparity, and pressure will do their work as they always have and without complications arising from contractual obligations and threat of lawsuit. When further consolidation occurs, and it will given demographics and economical issues, Clemson, USC, FSU, Oregon and others who commit will all find a slot, and in a more equitable association than they have now.

We'll know the trajectory after the SCOTUS ruling on pay for play, the B1G's new contract, and the PAC 12's new contract. Then more movement will happen because 40 million a year in media money alone over the 13 remaining years of the ACC's contract will amount to over a half billion in lost revenue and that's a lot of disparity and pressure over what in any business is a long, long, time.

(11-01-2021 08:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the B1G is hurting itself athletically because of what I suspect is academic snobbery. I think if they wanted to form an alliance, they picked the wrong partners. I think they should ally with the SEC, not oppose them.

If I were a Czar who could make this happen, I would have the B1G expand to 16 to match the SEC by adding Virginia Tech and NC State. These are solid academic schools, and among the best in the ACC in fan support/attendance. They do have strong ties to the ACC, but not as strong as Virginia, Carolina and Duke. They could be separated from the herd.

Those two would be added to the B1G East, along with Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and Purdue. The West would consist of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Here's where the Alliance comes in. Let the current CFP contract run its course, and when it expires do not renew it. Not just change it - do away with it entirely. Instead, hold an 8 team post-season tournament with just B1G and SEC teams.

The SEC West regular season champ hosts the SEC East runnerup, all based on only division round robin records. The East champ hosts the West runnerup. The B1G does the same. All games are played on the home field of the division champs. Each conference negotiates its own media deal for these first round games. The first round winners are declared Conference Co-champions and advance to the semifinals.

In the semifinal round, the higher ranked SEC co-champ plays the lower ranked B1G champ, and vice versa. These games are played at the Peach Bowl and the Cotton Bowl on the Saturday before New Year's. The Rose Bowl matches the PAC champion and their choice of the B1G's first round losers in their traditional 4PM EST time slot on New Year's Day. The Orange Bowl gets the other B1G first round loser to face the ACC champ. The Fiesta Bowl pairs the first choice of the SEC losers with the most attractive team not in either the SEC or B1G. The Sugar matches the other SEC loser and the Big 12 champion.

The Peach Bowl winner plays the Cotton Bowl winner at a site selected by bids for the Alliance Championship. Then, in lieu of a CFP, the AP and Coaches conduct their beauty contest to declare a mythical national champion, just like in the good old days.

This arrangement addresses Presidents' concerns about the season getting too long - only two schools would play as many as 15 games. None of the Alliance tournament games would get in the way of final exams. And while there's a good chance the total revenues from this arrangement would be less than a 12 team CFP would bring, nearly all of it would go into the SEC and B1G's coffers meaning they wouldn't give up any revenue. It's the other 100 schools outside the Alliance that would get considerably less.

This is capitalistic greed at its finest. It's the American way.

Why send the second string? Those two aren't even AAU.
If you wanted to send two ACC schools to join the B1G, you might consider Georgia Tech and Carolina, or even UVa and Carolina.

Or if you didn't want to want to send the core of the ACC, how about trading Maryland for Pitt and then send Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.

(11-01-2021 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 08:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 05:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 12:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  South Carolina brought in former North Carolina football player Eric Hyman as their athletic director to negotiate with the ACC.
He was seen so many times in Greensboro and in Chapel Hill during 2010-11 that the South Carolina administration made up a story to hide his true mission, it suggested that Carolina was trying to steal Hyman from the Gamecocks as their AD, and made a huge deal about giving Hyman a $50,000 raise to keep him in Columbia.
When the talks broke down a few months later and Hyman was no longer useful as a go-between, he (Hyman) packed his bags, left Columbia, and accepted the Athletic Director's job at Texas A&M.

If South Carolina ever was or ever would be interested in rejoining the ACC then it would be because they had wholly given up on competing at the highest levels and simply didn't want to work towards funding the AD to the requisite degree.

They literally have not one single other motivation to go to the ACC.

You have that totally backward. If winning is more important than money they come home, if money is more important that winning they stay in the SEC.

Come home?

South Carolina left the ACC in 1971. They joined in 1953 which means they were there less than 20 years. I know 50 years seems like a blink of an eye for some folks, but that's a long time. Heck, they were independent longer than they were in the ACC.

South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992 and that was nearly 30 years ago.

By contrast, Georgia Tech left the SEC in 1964. They were the last team to leave the SEC. The last team to leave the ACC was Maryland and they certainly weren't the last team to entertain it openly. Heck, folks from Florida State were talking about it publicly a few weeks ago.

The SEC just added 2 of the top economic powers in the entire country, 2 schools that have never had any previous relationship with the SEC. The teams petitioning the ACC for entry include the likes of West Virginia and South Florida. No offense to them.

But y'all let me know the next time winning a few extra games against a couple of teams from a neighboring state is enough to pay the bills. So yes, they want the money.

And Clemson doesn't really have anything to do with it. Sure, South Carolina is directly competing against Clemson, but they are also competing against every major program in the Southeast for dollars, recruits, and media exposure. They will continue to compete against these very same SEC schools whether they play in the SEC or not. Would you rather compete against the best with a superior budget or an inferior budget?

If you think winning games against inferior competition just to inflate your record( and thus give yourself a better shot at a title) is a sustainable strategy then you may want to reconsider. Clemson has been a bit lucky the last few years, but they are clearly in decline. You could tell it a couple of years ago when they got smoked by LSU in the title game. You can certainly tell it this year with fewer impact players on the field. How did they get into a situation where they have fewer impact players? See, the first part of this conversation.

If you'd like to understand that point then ask your friends in Tallahassee about the long term effects of smaller budgets.

Or perhaps ask yourself why dominant schools in a league that was already bringing down more revenue than the ACC would choose a richer league despite the fact all the geniuses online said they were better off in a league that was easier to win.

No, I do not have it backwards.

I guess the only thing left to do is actually paint a picture.

I eagerly await your Picasso.

(11-01-2021 06:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  AllTide,

Since the eras of conferences began in 1921, South Carolina has shared a conference with Bama, Auburn, MSU, UK, TN, UD, Ole Miss, and Vandy. They shared a conference with UNC, NC State, and Clemson, for 50 years. 42 years in the case of Duke. You of course remember the old Southern Conference and its 23 schools.

From a football standpoint SC has played the following schools -

Clemson - 113 times
Georgia - 71 times
NC State and UNC - 58 times
WF - 56 times
Duke - 44 times
Vandy - 41 times
Tennessee - 40 times

Obviously SC judges its home to be the states of SC, NC, TN, and Georgia. This is before any discussion of basketball.

I'm not saying SC is a poor fit in the SEC, but I don't judge their fit to be as good as TAMU or Arkansas.

Mizzou's real rivals are in the Big 10. South Carolina's real rivals are in the ACC. Now, bring Clemson, UNC, and NC State into the SEC, and yes then SC is "home".

The Southern Conference divided essentially along geographic lines...the Appalachians. Well...they had to. Rail lines only went certain places. Add to that East Coast media members tended to favor the schools they had easier access to.

Fast forward nearly 100 years and in the era of interstates and airplanes, geography takes on a whole new meaning.

South Carolina fits in the ACC just fine, but they have no reason to be there and there is literally no evidence they desire it. They left the ACC 50 years ago and have not looked back. If they wanted to be in the ACC then they have a funny way of showing it considering they could have left anytime up until the moment the SEC Network was founded.

(11-01-2021 06:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  AllTide,

Since the eras of conferences began in 1921, South Carolina has shared a conference with Bama, Auburn, MSU, UK, TN, UD, Ole Miss, and Vandy. They shared a conference with UNC, NC State, and Clemson, for 50 years. 42 years in the case of Duke. You of course remember the old Southern Conference and its 23 schools.

From a football standpoint SC has played the following schools -

Clemson - 113 times
Georgia - 71 times
NC State and UNC - 58 times
WF - 56 times
Duke - 44 times
Vandy - 41 times
Tennessee - 40 times

Obviously SC judges its home to be the states of SC, NC, TN, and Georgia. This is before any discussion of basketball.

I'm not saying SC is a poor fit in the SEC, but I don't judge their fit to be as good as TAMU or Arkansas.

Mizzou's real rivals are in the Big 10. South Carolina's real rivals are in the ACC. Now, bring Clemson, UNC, and NC State into the SEC, and yes then SC is "home".

Arkansas was a good "fit" in the SEC pre-TAMU?? Pre-Texas??? LMAO!!!!!! Arkansas fans complained for years that they were a poor fit for the SEC. In fact, I recall reading numerous Arkansas to the Big 12 posts on this site and others before the Big 12 lost TAMU, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Now??? No one in their right mind would even bother to bring that up again.

And a lot of things you say about South Carolina, Statefan, could be applied to Georgia Tech. I'm sure I could make the case that based on history, Georgia Tech belongs in the SEC. But I have no desire to make that case, because neither the SEC nor the Georgia Institute of Technology have any desire to make this happen.

As for Missouri, the B1G had every opportunity to scoop them up, multiple times, I might add. But the B1G failed to do so every single time, so no, I am not shedding any tears for the B1G. The SEC took the only opportunity they had with Missouri and made the most of it. Is it as a fit as some other schools?? No, and both the SEC and Mizzou know that, IMO. But the SEC has accepted Mizzou as one of their own, and Mizzou loves it!!! Like South Carolina, they are not looking back.

Sounds like B1G has been having a bad case of buyers remorse on Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. But, in the words of an old auctioneer my dad liked to quote, "Too late to pray brother. The devil done come."

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(11-01-2021 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 06:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 04:58 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 03:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  I wasn't trying to be the football Czar - just the B1G/SEC Alliance Czar. I don't care if we can legitimately claim to be the best in the FBS. I'm just controlling the post season by dominating all six NY6 bowls and hogging the money for myself (and my ally, the SEC).

Here's what this would accomplish.

Our alliance would receive half of the revenue from the four meaningless New Years Day bowls, and no other conference will get more than one eighth. We would also get 100% of the revenue from seven much more compelling Alliance tournament games while other conferences get zero. We would have effectively separated ourselves from the rest of the FBS without having to formally split from it. We would have denied the champions of the other three power conferences (and Notre Dame) any opportunity to get a signature win in the postseason because they would only get to play our third and fourth best teams. Because of this, even though there would be no CFP championship to win, I'd bet our champion would be voted #1 by the AP and Coaches at least half the time anyway, and maybe as often as two thirds of the time. But that's not the goal - that's lagniappe. That's icing on the cake, which we would get to both have and eat it too.

Doesn’t matter whether you’re the B1G & SEC Czar, or the FBS Czar. If you’re trying to make the most money, my points still stand. FWIW, a money-making collaboration between the B1G and SEC already exists…it’s the CFP.

If the B1G and SEC extend the current collaboration to an exclusive post-season Alliance they won’t make more money than the current (broader & inclusive) CFP. This B1G & SEC Alliance would not be about greed nor capitalism; it would be mercantilism…The B1G & SEC Alliance could ensure that their revenues are higher than other conference revenues.

Talk about your faulty logic! The SEC and Big Ten are the two highest paid conferences. There are no additions other conferences can make to come close to them in revenue, let alone catch them. Therefore if they collaborate to improve their market reach, number of viewers, and revenue they are guilty of mercantilism? It's called economic synergy and is a logical move if you are to enhance what you offer in a consumer driven industry. What kind of Woke Maoist Economics do they teach at Virginia?

Economics and economists are worthless. They teach people to risk their money in predictable ways based upon past models and current trends and past performance. CEO's call them suckers and PT Barnum reminds us one is born every minute. Demographics tell you where people are headed, not just where they've been. You make more money if you know where you are headed and why. Playing stocks based on what Universities teach is like betting on games that were played yesterday but without your knowledge, but with the bookie holding the results. Good luck with that!

KenD makes a valid point in terms of what could be potentially done. It won't be, until.....the SEC and Big 10 have finished shaping their respective conferences and allowing the economic deficits of the PAC 12, ACC and new Big 12 to erode and pressure their best brands into relocation, weaken further the lesser ones, and let natural attrition cull the field. You don't get sued if eventually a dozen or so schools elect to drop down. Then the SEC and B1G assimilate survivors and form 2 leagues inclusive of the best brands left from the other three, with the broadest reach market wise, and rules introduced to assist competitiveness. And, all done without legal entanglements. Then they collaborate on the sale of their rights. So, a synergistic rivalry becomes the tide that lifts all boats and it isn't mercantilism, just good business. Why buy out competition that is failing or can't afford to compete? Just let nature take its course and patiently wait. Right now there are too many agendas, too much confusion over a transition to pay for play, and too many fingers in the pie which belong to those who only want to eat a slice and don't harvest the fruit, prepare it, come up with a winning recipe, or create an appealing and appetizing product.

The interim is a winnowing which is exactly what free enterprise is supposed to do. Right now (1983 to date) college sports is still under the hangover of NCAA socialism and the quagmire it created by lumping schools of all sizes and means together, which isn't natural in nature, or in a free market!

It sincerely appalls me that so many decent, ethical, and apt young people are being taught only how to be a cog in a system which will impersonally spit you out when age makes you a liability to their group plan, and never teach you to be self directed. In short the vast majority of my grandchildren are being taught how to ultimately fail having had a short term limited opportunity in their young adulthood. It's a Faustian bargain and BS economics and corporate loyalty are 2 of the key components.

And by the way the attrition in college sports is going to be rational and mild by comparison to what is coming in higher education as a whole. I've never been happier to be retired. It's going to be brutal.

Maybe you should re-read the entire post. I bolded the key mercantilist suggestion above: ken d proposed that the B1G & SEC form an Alliance, eliminate the CFP, and form their own exclusive postseason. If you honestly believe that making the playoffs the exclusive purview of the SEC & B1G, then SEC hubris has gotten the better of your sound business sense.

No doubt that Alabama and Ohio State will win more often in ken d and your proposal. Maybe you’ll even convince your regionalized audience that Alabama versus Rutgers playoff game is great television. Maybe Vanderbilt will actually be able to make your playoffs.

On the other hand, I believe that the excluded football powers (such FSU, Clemson, USC, Oregon) would actually expand the audience, nationalize the sport and generate more revenue for everyone.

FWIW - I have no concern if the SEC & B1G form an Alliance and do a breakaway, but I’m not convinced that it would be good business.

Where did I suggest Clemson and FSU or USC and Oregon would be left out? I find your comprehension wholly lacking and when you argue you can't resist setting up a straw man to tear down. You obviously never had, or grasped logic as you repeat this fallacy often. What did I say??? I said all the SEC and Big Ten need do is to let disparity trim the number of hands in the pie and absorb the rest and form 2 leagues.

And no I didn't miss one ridiculous word in your retort to KenD, nor did I miss his point about how the 2 could maximize revenue (which had sarcasm in it). I merely pointed out that no such merger or arrangement was needed. Market forces will take care of it quite well, as it has been doing to both the B12 and ACC and as it will inevitably do with the PAC. It's just that so far the geography of the PAC has provided a natural and costly inertia.

As I've noted for years, time, economic disparity, and pressure will do their work as they always have and without complications arising from contractual obligations and threat of lawsuit. When further consolidation occurs, and it will given demographics and economical issues, Clemson, USC, FSU, Oregon and others who commit will all find a slot, and in a more equitable association than they have now.

We'll know the trajectory after the SCOTUS ruling on pay for play, the B1G's new contract, and the PAC 12's new contract. Then more movement will happen because 40 million a year in media money alone over the 13 remaining years of the ACC's contract will amount to over a half billion in lost revenue and that's a lot of disparity and pressure over what in any business is a long, long, time.

I'm afraid some here are focusing a little too much on details, and are overlooking a broader point to my original post. That is, by forming an Alliance with the PAC and ACC, the B1G is not only backing the wrong horse, they are in effect declaring that they aren't on the same (high) level as the SEC when they should be capitalizing on the fact that those two conferences aren't on the same level as everyone else. All they need to do to make that reality as permanent as anything can be in the world of college sports and expand the gap between themselves and the next tier of schools is to collaborate. They don't need to negotiate a CFP contract with the entire FBS.

The B1G and the SEC don't really need a lot more revenue than they already generate. What matters isn't the size of their budgets, but how much bigger and more secure those budgets are compared with everyone else's. They don't need a rising tide to lift all boats.

(11-02-2021 06:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 07:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 06:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 04:58 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Doesn’t matter whether you’re the B1G & SEC Czar, or the FBS Czar. If you’re trying to make the most money, my points still stand. FWIW, a money-making collaboration between the B1G and SEC already exists…it’s the CFP.

If the B1G and SEC extend the current collaboration to an exclusive post-season Alliance they won’t make more money than the current (broader & inclusive) CFP. This B1G & SEC Alliance would not be about greed nor capitalism; it would be mercantilism…The B1G & SEC Alliance could ensure that their revenues are higher than other conference revenues.

I understood and agree with your position, but that premise has a gravity which will inevitably lead to the inclusion of the other top brands in one or the other leagues for the very reasons you suggest distinguish those 2 conferences. They earn more because of the interest they generate and the relative cohesiveness of their institutions, but that cohesion and revenue potential grows as they draw other strong associations from their periphery and in a few instances from their immediate region. And they too can grow stronger bringing in schools which augment their weaker features. It is why what is transpiring is more of a consolidation than a realignment.

Talk about your faulty logic! The SEC and Big Ten are the two highest paid conferences. There are no additions other conferences can make to come close to them in revenue, let alone catch them. Therefore if they collaborate to improve their market reach, number of viewers, and revenue they are guilty of mercantilism? It's called economic synergy and is a logical move if you are to enhance what you offer in a consumer driven industry. What kind of Woke Maoist Economics do they teach at Virginia?

Economics and economists are worthless. They teach people to risk their money in predictable ways based upon past models and current trends and past performance. CEO's call them suckers and PT Barnum reminds us one is born every minute. Demographics tell you where people are headed, not just where they've been. You make more money if you know where you are headed and why. Playing stocks based on what Universities teach is like betting on games that were played yesterday but without your knowledge, but with the bookie holding the results. Good luck with that!

KenD makes a valid point in terms of what could be potentially done. It won't be, until.....the SEC and Big 10 have finished shaping their respective conferences and allowing the economic deficits of the PAC 12, ACC and new Big 12 to erode and pressure their best brands into relocation, weaken further the lesser ones, and let natural attrition cull the field. You don't get sued if eventually a dozen or so schools elect to drop down. Then the SEC and B1G assimilate survivors and form 2 leagues inclusive of the best brands left from the other three, with the broadest reach market wise, and rules introduced to assist competitiveness. And, all done without legal entanglements. Then they collaborate on the sale of their rights. So, a synergistic rivalry becomes the tide that lifts all boats and it isn't mercantilism, just good business. Why buy out competition that is failing or can't afford to compete? Just let nature take its course and patiently wait. Right now there are too many agendas, too much confusion over a transition to pay for play, and too many fingers in the pie which belong to those who only want to eat a slice and don't harvest the fruit, prepare it, come up with a winning recipe, or create an appealing and appetizing product.

The interim is a winnowing which is exactly what free enterprise is supposed to do. Right now (1983 to date) college sports is still under the hangover of NCAA socialism and the quagmire it created by lumping schools of all sizes and means together, which isn't natural in nature, or in a free market!

It sincerely appalls me that so many decent, ethical, and apt young people are being taught only how to be a cog in a system which will impersonally spit you out when age makes you a liability to their group plan, and never teach you to be self directed. In short the vast majority of my grandchildren are being taught how to ultimately fail having had a short term limited opportunity in their young adulthood. It's a Faustian bargain and BS economics and corporate loyalty are 2 of the key components.

And by the way the attrition in college sports is going to be rational and mild by comparison to what is coming in higher education as a whole. I've never been happier to be retired. It's going to be brutal.

Maybe you should re-read the entire post. I bolded the key mercantilist suggestion above: ken d proposed that the B1G & SEC form an Alliance, eliminate the CFP, and form their own exclusive postseason. If you honestly believe that making the playoffs the exclusive purview of the SEC & B1G, then SEC hubris has gotten the better of your sound business sense.

No doubt that Alabama and Ohio State will win more often in ken d and your proposal. Maybe you’ll even convince your regionalized audience that Alabama versus Rutgers playoff game is great television. Maybe Vanderbilt will actually be able to make your playoffs.

On the other hand, I believe that the excluded football powers (such FSU, Clemson, USC, Oregon) would actually expand the audience, nationalize the sport and generate more revenue for everyone.

FWIW - I have no concern if the SEC & B1G form an Alliance and do a breakaway, but I’m not convinced that it would be good business.

Where did I suggest Clemson and FSU or USC and Oregon would be left out? I find your comprehension wholly lacking and when you argue you can't resist setting up a straw man to tear down. You obviously never had, or grasped logic as you repeat this fallacy often. What did I say??? I said all the SEC and Big Ten need do is to let disparity trim the number of hands in the pie and absorb the rest and form 2 leagues.

And no I didn't miss one ridiculous word in your retort to KenD, nor did I miss his point about how the 2 could maximize revenue (which had sarcasm in it). I merely pointed out that no such merger or arrangement was needed. Market forces will take care of it quite well, as it has been doing to both the B12 and ACC and as it will inevitably do with the PAC. It's just that so far the geography of the PAC has provided a natural and costly inertia.

As I've noted for years, time, economic disparity, and pressure will do their work as they always have and without complications arising from contractual obligations and threat of lawsuit. When further consolidation occurs, and it will given demographics and economical issues, Clemson, USC, FSU, Oregon and others who commit will all find a slot, and in a more equitable association than they have now.

We'll know the trajectory after the SCOTUS ruling on pay for play, the B1G's new contract, and the PAC 12's new contract. Then more movement will happen because 40 million a year in media money alone over the 13 remaining years of the ACC's contract will amount to over a half billion in lost revenue and that's a lot of disparity and pressure over what in any business is a long, long, time.

I'm afraid some here are focusing a little too much on details, and are overlooking a broader point to my original post. That is, by forming an Alliance with the PAC and ACC, the B1G is not only backing the wrong horse, they are in effect declaring that they aren't on the same (high) level as the SEC when they should be capitalizing on the fact that those two conferences aren't on the same level as everyone else. All they need to do to make that reality as permanent as anything can be in the world of college sports and expand the gap between themselves and the next tier of schools is to collaborate. They don't need to negotiate a CFP contract with the entire FBS.

The B1G and the SEC don't really need a lot more revenue than they already generate. What matters isn't the size of their budgets, but how much bigger and more secure those budgets are compared with everyone else's. They don't need a rising tide to lift all boats.

(11-02-2021 12:06 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 06:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  AllTide,

Since the eras of conferences began in 1921, South Carolina has shared a conference with Bama, Auburn, MSU, UK, TN, UD, Ole Miss, and Vandy. They shared a conference with UNC, NC State, and Clemson, for 50 years. 42 years in the case of Duke. You of course remember the old Southern Conference and its 23 schools.

From a football standpoint SC has played the following schools -

Clemson - 113 times
Georgia - 71 times
NC State and UNC - 58 times
WF - 56 times
Duke - 44 times
Vandy - 41 times
Tennessee - 40 times

Obviously SC judges its home to be the states of SC, NC, TN, and Georgia. This is before any discussion of basketball.

I'm not saying SC is a poor fit in the SEC, but I don't judge their fit to be as good as TAMU or Arkansas.

Mizzou's real rivals are in the Big 10. South Carolina's real rivals are in the ACC. Now, bring Clemson, UNC, and NC State into the SEC, and yes then SC is "home".

Arkansas was a good "fit" in the SEC pre-TAMU?? Pre-Texas??? LMAO!!!!!! Arkansas fans complained for years that they were a poor fit for the SEC. In fact, I recall reading numerous Arkansas to the Big 12 posts on this site and others before the Big 12 lost TAMU, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Now??? No one in their right mind would even bother to bring that up again.

And a lot of things you say about South Carolina, Statefan, could be applied to Georgia Tech. I'm sure I could make the case that based on history, Georgia Tech belongs in the SEC. But I have no desire to make that case, because neither the SEC nor the Georgia Institute of Technology have any desire to make this happen.

As for Missouri, the B1G had every opportunity to scoop them up, multiple times, I might add. But the B1G failed to do so every single time, so no, I am not shedding any tears for the B1G. The SEC took the only opportunity they had with Missouri and made the most of it. Is it as a fit as some other schools?? No, and both the SEC and Mizzou know that, IMO. But the SEC has accepted Mizzou as one of their own, and Mizzou loves it!!! Like South Carolina, they are not looking back.

Sounds like B1G has been having a bad case of buyers remorse on Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. But, in the words of an old auctioneer my dad liked to quote, "Too late to pray brother. The devil done come."

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

South Carolina is the best fit of the 4 additions to the SEC. Georgia-South Carolina immediately became a rivalry both ways. Missouri was clearly the worst fit. Arkansas wasn't a particularly good fit. A&M was an ok fit. But Arkansas and A&M fit much better with Texas and Oklahoma in the conference.

(11-04-2021 02:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 12:06 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-01-2021 06:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  AllTide,

Since the eras of conferences began in 1921, South Carolina has shared a conference with Bama, Auburn, MSU, UK, TN, UD, Ole Miss, and Vandy. They shared a conference with UNC, NC State, and Clemson, for 50 years. 42 years in the case of Duke. You of course remember the old Southern Conference and its 23 schools.

From a football standpoint SC has played the following schools -

Clemson - 113 times
Georgia - 71 times
NC State and UNC - 58 times
WF - 56 times
Duke - 44 times
Vandy - 41 times
Tennessee - 40 times

Obviously SC judges its home to be the states of SC, NC, TN, and Georgia. This is before any discussion of basketball.

I'm not saying SC is a poor fit in the SEC, but I don't judge their fit to be as good as TAMU or Arkansas.

Mizzou's real rivals are in the Big 10. South Carolina's real rivals are in the ACC. Now, bring Clemson, UNC, and NC State into the SEC, and yes then SC is "home".

Arkansas was a good "fit" in the SEC pre-TAMU?? Pre-Texas??? LMAO!!!!!! Arkansas fans complained for years that they were a poor fit for the SEC. In fact, I recall reading numerous Arkansas to the Big 12 posts on this site and others before the Big 12 lost TAMU, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Now??? No one in their right mind would even bother to bring that up again.

And a lot of things you say about South Carolina, Statefan, could be applied to Georgia Tech. I'm sure I could make the case that based on history, Georgia Tech belongs in the SEC. But I have no desire to make that case, because neither the SEC nor the Georgia Institute of Technology have any desire to make this happen.

As for Missouri, the B1G had every opportunity to scoop them up, multiple times, I might add. But the B1G failed to do so every single time, so no, I am not shedding any tears for the B1G. The SEC took the only opportunity they had with Missouri and made the most of it. Is it as a fit as some other schools?? No, and both the SEC and Mizzou know that, IMO. But the SEC has accepted Mizzou as one of their own, and Mizzou loves it!!! Like South Carolina, they are not looking back.

Sounds like B1G has been having a bad case of buyers remorse on Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. But, in the words of an old auctioneer my dad liked to quote, "Too late to pray brother. The devil done come."

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

South Carolina is the best fit of the 4 additions to the SEC. Georgia-South Carolina immediately became a rivalry both ways. Missouri was clearly the worst fit. Arkansas wasn't a particularly good fit. A&M was an ok fit. But Arkansas and A&M fit much better with Texas and Oklahoma in the conference.

South Carolina already had a long standing rivalry with Georgia before they joined the SEC.

SC played Georgia 43 times before they joined the SEC.

Georgia's most played games are with:

126 Auburn
116 GT
98 UF
81 Vandy
75 UK
74 South Carolina
70 Bama
65 Clemson