(10-29-2021 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2021 09:08 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I would also suggest that UNC and UVa are essentially private even though the cost is not like a private school.

When you get down to it, only NC State, VT, FSU, and Louisville are public to the core.

GT's curriculum and Clemson's 7-6 control of their Board make them different animals as well.

When South Carolina was negotiating to re-join the ACC (2010-11), one of their major concerns was that Carolina would eventually become a totally private institution and leave the ACC to join an all private conference, leaving South Carolina in a crippled situation.

Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2021 09:08 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I would also suggest that UNC and UVa are essentially private even though the cost is not like a private school.

When you get down to it, only NC State, VT, FSU, and Louisville are public to the core.

GT's curriculum and Clemson's 7-6 control of their Board make them different animals as well.

When South Carolina was negotiating to re-join the ACC (2010-11), one of their major concerns was that Carolina would eventually become a totally private institution and leave the ACC to join an all private conference, leaving South Carolina in a crippled situation.

Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.

(10-29-2021 12:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2021 09:08 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I would also suggest that UNC and UVa are essentially private even though the cost is not like a private school.

When you get down to it, only NC State, VT, FSU, and Louisville are public to the core.

GT's curriculum and Clemson's 7-6 control of their Board make them different animals as well.

When South Carolina was negotiating to re-join the ACC (2010-11), one of their major concerns was that Carolina would eventually become a totally private institution and leave the ACC to join an all private conference, leaving South Carolina in a crippled situation.

Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2021 09:08 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I would also suggest that UNC and UVa are essentially private even though the cost is not like a private school.

When you get down to it, only NC State, VT, FSU, and Louisville are public to the core.

GT's curriculum and Clemson's 7-6 control of their Board make them different animals as well.

When South Carolina was negotiating to re-join the ACC (2010-11), one of their major concerns was that Carolina would eventually become a totally private institution and leave the ACC to join an all private conference, leaving South Carolina in a crippled situation.

Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

It's not a secret, it's just fiction.

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 12:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2021 09:08 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I would also suggest that UNC and UVa are essentially private even though the cost is not like a private school.

When you get down to it, only NC State, VT, FSU, and Louisville are public to the core.

GT's curriculum and Clemson's 7-6 control of their Board make them different animals as well.

When South Carolina was negotiating to re-join the ACC (2010-11), one of their major concerns was that Carolina would eventually become a totally private institution and leave the ACC to join an all private conference, leaving South Carolina in a crippled situation.

Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.

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

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 12:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  When South Carolina was negotiating to re-join the ACC (2010-11), one of their major concerns was that Carolina would eventually become a totally private institution and leave the ACC to join an all private conference, leaving South Carolina in a crippled situation.

Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.

There was no SECN in 2010 and the money issue could have easily been erased by a reduction in travel.
And at some point the good folks at South Carolina will realize the can not compete against the upper echelon of the SEC, and have developed zero rivalries that didn't exist before they joined the SEC. Why would they want to continue only to become another Vanderbilt.

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

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 12:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  When South Carolina was negotiating to re-join the ACC (2010-11), one of their major concerns was that Carolina would eventually become a totally private institution and leave the ACC to join an all private conference, leaving South Carolina in a crippled situation.

Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.

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

If winning is more important than money, Oklahoma and Texas would have never wanted to join the SEC and several of the SEC schools would have left for Conference USA.

(10-30-2021 05:39 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

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

If winning is more important than money, Oklahoma and Texas would have never wanted to join the SEC and several of the SEC schools would have left for Conference USA.

Several? Name them and justify your remarks! Vanderbilt? ACC Missouri? B10 or back to the B12. There aren't any more. And no one would be in CUSA, troll.

There’s been talk on this thread that if the power leagues could break away and monetize basketball better it would make the basketball blue bloods like Kansas and some key ACC schools got commodities. Wouldn’t that flight risk make their conference mates want to stay in the ncaa?

(10-30-2021 10:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s been talk on this thread that if the power leagues could break away and monetize basketball better it would make the basketball blue bloods like Kansas and some key ACC schools got commodities. Wouldn’t that flight risk make their conference mates want to stay in the ncaa?

Why? They all make more as well since most are more noted for hoops and the few football schools want out so they can make more too. And Muskie it might be argued that the conference might have better cohesion without them and would certainly be better positioned to make adds that benefit all sports. Think of the programs disdained by the elite.

The greatest obstacles to finishing realignment in a satisfactory manner in 2022-3 is what happened in the realignment in 2011-2. The picture and geography would be so much easier without some or all of the 2011-2 moves, depending upon the conference, IMO.

(10-30-2021 01:02 PM)XLance 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:  

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.

There was no SECN in 2010 and the money issue could have easily been erased by a reduction in travel.
And at some point the good folks at South Carolina will realize the can not compete against the upper echelon of the SEC, and have developed zero rivalries that didn't exist before they joined the SEC. Why would they want to continue only to become another Vanderbilt.

I'm interested to hear your rebuttal on this post JR.

(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:  

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.

Question for you Statefan:

If the Pennsylvania Lottery is at $30 million and the North Carolina Lottery is at $150 million, which would you be more likely to play?? My guess would be be $150 lottery, but you might be a very loyal Pennsylvanian.

Question 2: let's say that the $30 million jackpot for Pennsylvania is rare, and they are known for having $170 million jackpots, whereas NC's jackpot is a rare fluke at $150 million, and they are more known for $30 million jackpots.

(10-30-2021 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s been talk on this thread that if the power leagues could break away and monetize basketball better it would make the basketball blue bloods like Kansas and some key ACC schools got commodities. Wouldn’t that flight risk make their conference mates want to stay in the ncaa?

Why? They all make more as well since most are more noted for hoops and the few football schools want out so they can make more too. And Muskie it might be argued that the conference might have better cohesion without them and would certainly be better positioned to make adds that benefit all sports. Think of the programs disdained by the elite.

The greatest obstacles to finishing realignment in a satisfactory manner in 2022-3 is what happened in the realignment in 2011-2 2005-2014. The picture and geography would be so much easier without some or all of the 2011-2 moves, depending upon the conference, IMO.

Amen, brother!

(10-30-2021 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s been talk on this thread that if the power leagues could break away and monetize basketball better it would make the basketball blue bloods like Kansas and some key ACC schools got commodities. Wouldn’t that flight risk make their conference mates want to stay in the ncaa?

Why? They all make more as well since most are more noted for hoops and the few football schools want out so they can make more too. And Muskie it might be argued that the conference might have better cohesion without them and would certainly be better positioned to make adds that benefit all sports. Think of the programs disdained by the elite.

The greatest obstacles to finishing realignment in a satisfactory manner in 2022-3 is what happened in the realignment in 2011-2. The picture and geography would be so much easier without some or all of the 2011-2 moves, depending upon the conference, IMO.

Schools aren’t going to voluntarily give up their current athletic status just because it might be more geographically convenient for others if their conference died.

Everything the Big 8/12 has done since the OU/UGa SCOTUS case has been about sheer survival. First, they were told by TV that they couldn’t get “major conference” TV money because the Big 8 population base was and is tiny, so they dismantled the SWC to get Texas brand names and TV markets. Then they got raided from 3 directions and reached east to get West Virginia because they didn’t find local alternatives as attractive. Then the SEC launched its second raid on the Big 12, and the Big 12 reached both east and west to salvage as much TV value as they could.

What were they supposed to do? Sit back and accept the same eventual fate as WAC football? Watch their members that were most attractive to other conferences go away, and then the rest happily join the MAC or CUSA or whichever?

Of course they were, and are, trying to stave that fate off, and will continue to do so.

(10-31-2021 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s been talk on this thread that if the power leagues could break away and monetize basketball better it would make the basketball blue bloods like Kansas and some key ACC schools got commodities. Wouldn’t that flight risk make their conference mates want to stay in the ncaa?

Why? They all make more as well since most are more noted for hoops and the few football schools want out so they can make more too. And Muskie it might be argued that the conference might have better cohesion without them and would certainly be better positioned to make adds that benefit all sports. Think of the programs disdained by the elite.

The greatest obstacles to finishing realignment in a satisfactory manner in 2022-3 is what happened in the realignment in 2011-2. The picture and geography would be so much easier without some or all of the 2011-2 moves, depending upon the conference, IMO.

Schools aren’t going to voluntarily give up their current athletic status just because it might be more geographically convenient for others if their conference died.

Everything the Big 8/12 has done since the OU/UGa SCOTUS case has been about sheer survival. First, they were told by TV that they couldn’t get “major conference” TV money because the Big 8 population base was and is tiny, so they dismantled the SWC to get Texas brand names and TV markets. Then they got raided from 3 directions and reached east to get West Virginia because they didn’t find local alternatives as attractive. Then the SEC launched its second raid on the Big 12, and the Big 12 reached both east and west to salvage as much TV value as they could.

What were they supposed to do? Sit back and accept the same eventual fate as WAC football? Watch their members that were most attractive to other conferences go away, and then the rest happily join the MAC or CUSA or whichever?

Of course they were, and are, trying to stave that fate off, and will continue to do so.

The same pressures which worked on the original B12 members are pressing the ACC, namely financial disparity, which cascades onto recruiting, and draft hopes, and competitiveness.

Time, Pressure and Economic Disparity erode business relationships and will continue to do so. Attaching a program to a more secure and competitive conference which is geographically reasonable (WVU excepted) has been the norm. I don't see that changing.

That said you missed the thrust of my assertion though XLance did not. Had Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, and as he pointed out Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and perhaps Louisville, not moved where they did, a more cohesive and natural realignment would be not only possible now, but practical, at least for the schools. The awkward moves had more to do with network positioning for markets.

Way back Frank the Tank ranked New England schools for possible B10 expansion. The SEC looked to FSU and Clemson at the same time it was eyeing Texas. The B10 looked at Oklahoma and Kansas. While any movement has pros and cons at least the moves would have had more geographical and cultural synergy (and I'm talking regional culture not academic culture). The grafted fragmentation we have now because of those moves impedes homogenous growth.

Consolidation is coming because of demographics and economics. There would be less pain had previous realignment been more inclined to prioritize geographical and cultural fit. Instead the Big 12 was ripped in 3 different directions. And if the ACC caves to economic pressure it will likely be as well.

Had the PAC 12 taken in the Big 8, the SEC the SWC, and the Big 10 the Big East, the ACC would have become a much healthier tweener than the AAC proved to be or than the new B12 is likely to be. It's just something I ponder when thinking about what likely happens next.

(10-31-2021 01:25 AM)DawgNBama 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.

Question for you Statefan:

If the Pennsylvania Lottery is at $30 million and the North Carolina Lottery is at $150 million, which would you be more likely to play?? My guess would be be $150 lottery, but you might be a very loyal Pennsylvanian.

Question 2: let's say that the $30 million jackpot for Pennsylvania is rare, and they are known for having $170 million jackpots, whereas NC's jackpot is a rare fluke at $150 million, and they are more known for $30 million jackpots.

That's a false proposition.

Your assumption is that the NC lotto is winnable.

Now I will grant you that God did not make humans more stubborn than your average Gamecock. However, let's go back 15 years to when Spurrier arrived on the scene in Columbia, SC has finished 1st in the SEC East once in 2010 with a record of 5-3. 2nd - 4 times, 3rd - 2 times, 4th - 3 times, 5th - 2 times, 6th twice, and 7th once.

This is how much more money SC has generated as compared to Clemson over the past several years:

2020 - $ 4 M
2019 - $ 7 M
2018 - $ 20 M
2017 - $ 24 M
2016 - $ 18 M
2015 - $ 30 M

Do you think SC would prefer the money or Clemson's record?

An annual slate of (marquee rating in parens):

TAMU (A)
Georgia (A)
Florida (A)
UK (B)
Mizzou (B)
Tennessee (A)
Vandy ©
and an SEC west school like Bama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, or MSU (Usually and A) is more exciting than Clemson's of

GT (B)
FSU (A)
NCSU (B)
WF (B)
Louisville (B)
BC ©
Syracuse ©
and an ACC east school like Duke, UVa, UNC, Pitt, or Miami (Usually a B)

The extra 2-3 (A) games are translating into an extra 2-4 losses (loss 4 you get after getting your ass beat down 2 weeks in a row by A's).

Can you sustain this for the most stubborn people in America?

(10-31-2021 03:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s been talk on this thread that if the power leagues could break away and monetize basketball better it would make the basketball blue bloods like Kansas and some key ACC schools got commodities. Wouldn’t that flight risk make their conference mates want to stay in the ncaa?

Why? They all make more as well since most are more noted for hoops and the few football schools want out so they can make more too. And Muskie it might be argued that the conference might have better cohesion without them and would certainly be better positioned to make adds that benefit all sports. Think of the programs disdained by the elite.

The greatest obstacles to finishing realignment in a satisfactory manner in 2022-3 is what happened in the realignment in 2011-2. The picture and geography would be so much easier without some or all of the 2011-2 moves, depending upon the conference, IMO.

Schools aren’t going to voluntarily give up their current athletic status just because it might be more geographically convenient for others if their conference died.

Everything the Big 8/12 has done since the OU/UGa SCOTUS case has been about sheer survival. First, they were told by TV that they couldn’t get “major conference” TV money because the Big 8 population base was and is tiny, so they dismantled the SWC to get Texas brand names and TV markets. Then they got raided from 3 directions and reached east to get West Virginia because they didn’t find local alternatives as attractive. Then the SEC launched its second raid on the Big 12, and the Big 12 reached both east and west to salvage as much TV value as they could.

What were they supposed to do? Sit back and accept the same eventual fate as WAC football? Watch their members that were most attractive to other conferences go away, and then the rest happily join the MAC or CUSA or whichever?

Of course they were, and are, trying to stave that fate off, and will continue to do so.

The same pressures which worked on the original B12 members are pressing the ACC, namely financial disparity, which cascades onto recruiting, and draft hopes, and competitiveness.

Time, Pressure and Economic Disparity erode business relationships and will continue to do so. Attaching a program to a more secure and competitive conference which is geographically reasonable (WVU excepted) has been the norm. I don't see that changing.

That said you missed the thrust of my assertion though XLance did not. Had Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, and as he pointed out Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and perhaps Louisville, not moved where they did, a more cohesive and natural realignment would be not only possible now, but practical, at least for the schools. The awkward moves had more to do with network positioning for markets.

Way back Frank the Tank ranked New England schools for possible B10 expansion. The SEC looked to FSU and Clemson at the same time it was eyeing Texas. The B10 looked at Oklahoma and Kansas. While any movement has pros and cons at least the moves would have had more geographical and cultural synergy (and I'm talking regional culture not academic culture). The grafted fragmentation we have now because of those moves impedes homogenous growth.

Consolidation is coming because of demographics and economics. There would be less pain had previous realignment been more inclined to prioritize geographical and cultural fit. Instead the Big 12 was ripped in 3 different directions. And if the ACC caves to economic pressure it will likely be as well.

Had the PAC 12 taken in the Big 8, the SEC the SWC, and the Big 10 the Big East, the ACC would have become a much healthier tweener than the AAC proved to be or than the new B12 is likely to be. It's just something I ponder when thinking about what likely happens next.

There is little incentive for the relevant actors to have taken the bolded actions.

Pac-10 did not have the financial incentive from TV to add the entire Big 8 (instead of just adding Colorado), not to mention the fact that none of the Big 8 schools other than Colorado ever wanted to be in a west coast conference. There was never enough TV money out there for a two-division mega conference that added to the Pac-10 a bunch of sparsely populated states 1400 miles from the Pacific Ocean. (Even today, the total population of all of the Big 8 states combined is roughly equal to the population of Florida.)

Although the geography isn’t cuckoo like it would have been for Pac-10 plus Big 8, the SEC had no monetary incentive to add the entire SWC; they did what any aggressive capitalists would do and just, over time, added the three most valuable members from the SWC.

Big Ten/Big East has pretty much the same considerations the SEC had. No monetary incentive to add the whole league, either in the Miami version of Big East football or the post-Miami version.

The ACC, for its part, has acted pretty much as the Big 8 did, just gradually raiding a neighbor to try to maintain stability and a continuous flow of TV money.

Can’t blame any of these leagues for aggressively chasing money and/or survival, because that was inevitable after the SCOTUS decision. If anything, the desire of people in college sports to make more money on the one hand while maintaining the fiction of amateurism on the other hand has kept the chase of money from being even more raw.

(10-31-2021 04:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 03:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s been talk on this thread that if the power leagues could break away and monetize basketball better it would make the basketball blue bloods like Kansas and some key ACC schools got commodities. Wouldn’t that flight risk make their conference mates want to stay in the ncaa?

Why? They all make more as well since most are more noted for hoops and the few football schools want out so they can make more too. And Muskie it might be argued that the conference might have better cohesion without them and would certainly be better positioned to make adds that benefit all sports. Think of the programs disdained by the elite.

The greatest obstacles to finishing realignment in a satisfactory manner in 2022-3 is what happened in the realignment in 2011-2. The picture and geography would be so much easier without some or all of the 2011-2 moves, depending upon the conference, IMO.

Schools aren’t going to voluntarily give up their current athletic status just because it might be more geographically convenient for others if their conference died.

Everything the Big 8/12 has done since the OU/UGa SCOTUS case has been about sheer survival. First, they were told by TV that they couldn’t get “major conference” TV money because the Big 8 population base was and is tiny, so they dismantled the SWC to get Texas brand names and TV markets. Then they got raided from 3 directions and reached east to get West Virginia because they didn’t find local alternatives as attractive. Then the SEC launched its second raid on the Big 12, and the Big 12 reached both east and west to salvage as much TV value as they could.

What were they supposed to do? Sit back and accept the same eventual fate as WAC football? Watch their members that were most attractive to other conferences go away, and then the rest happily join the MAC or CUSA or whichever?

Of course they were, and are, trying to stave that fate off, and will continue to do so.

The same pressures which worked on the original B12 members are pressing the ACC, namely financial disparity, which cascades onto recruiting, and draft hopes, and competitiveness.

Time, Pressure and Economic Disparity erode business relationships and will continue to do so. Attaching a program to a more secure and competitive conference which is geographically reasonable (WVU excepted) has been the norm. I don't see that changing.

That said you missed the thrust of my assertion though XLance did not. Had Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, and as he pointed out Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and perhaps Louisville, not moved where they did, a more cohesive and natural realignment would be not only possible now, but practical, at least for the schools. The awkward moves had more to do with network positioning for markets.

Way back Frank the Tank ranked New England schools for possible B10 expansion. The SEC looked to FSU and Clemson at the same time it was eyeing Texas. The B10 looked at Oklahoma and Kansas. While any movement has pros and cons at least the moves would have had more geographical and cultural synergy (and I'm talking regional culture not academic culture). The grafted fragmentation we have now because of those moves impedes homogenous growth.

Consolidation is coming because of demographics and economics. There would be less pain had previous realignment been more inclined to prioritize geographical and cultural fit. Instead the Big 12 was ripped in 3 different directions. And if the ACC caves to economic pressure it will likely be as well.

Had the PAC 12 taken in the Big 8, the SEC the SWC, and the Big 10 the Big East, the ACC would have become a much healthier tweener than the AAC proved to be or than the new B12 is likely to be. It's just something I ponder when thinking about what likely happens next.

There is little incentive for the relevant actors to have taken the bolded actions.

Pac-10 did not have the financial incentive from TV to add the entire Big 8 (instead of just adding Colorado), not to mention the fact that none of the Big 8 schools other than Colorado ever wanted to be in a west coast conference. There was never enough TV money out there for a two-division mega conference that added to the Pac-10 a bunch of sparsely populated states 1400 miles from the Pacific Ocean. (Even today, the total population of all of the Big 8 states combined is roughly equal to the population of Florida.)

Although the geography isn’t cuckoo like it would have been for Pac-10 plus Big 8, the SEC had no monetary incentive to add the entire SWC; they did what any aggressive capitalists would do and just, over time, added the three most valuable members from the SWC.

Big Ten/Big East has pretty much the same considerations the SEC had. No monetary incentive to add the whole league, either in the Miami version of Big East football or the post-Miami version.

The ACC, for its part, has acted pretty much as the Big 8 did, just gradually raiding a neighbor to try to maintain stability and a continuous flow of TV money.

Can’t blame any of these leagues for aggressively chasing money and/or survival, because that was inevitable after the SCOTUS decision. If anything, the desire of people in college sports to make more money on the one hand while maintaining the fiction of amateurism on the other hand has kept the chase of money from being even more raw.

You are way too literal and my language assumed that all would not be taken from any of them because it is unreasonable to make that assumption. I wasn't writing a dissertation and didn't feel the need to be patently specific to counter all tedious assumptions.

The chase of money is raw, and it's going to get bloodier as demographics and budget tightening and technology lessen the demand for higher ed and bring some major cuts to its structure, and those cuts will be local, state and federal in nature.

Part of realignment now is brand association. It is a clustering as a means of older established schools setting themselves apart as necessary and the building which is going on at many is to prepare for the streamlining of undergraduates so tuition can help cover shrinking government assistance by majorly increasing enrollment. And, since that coincides with a dip in college eligible candidates it means they will be taking enrollment from smaller state schools.

The death of bogus amateurism should be a relief. At least the kids don't have to be complicit with tax fraud now. And, the monetization of hoops beyond the NCAA will help keep broader athletic offerings viable for a while longer.

I see a future with the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 and a 4th conference built from the ACC and B12 remnants and perhaps a handful of promoted G5's. I also see the MWC and another compilation G5 conference as the only 2 which remain FBS.

It won't happen overnight, but it's coming sooner than anyone expects it.

We have 1 court ruling between now and then and the playoff picture will be built on that finality and not before it.

And Wedge, it became all about money the moment it was corporatized and that happened prior to OU/UGa vs NCAA. Nobody noticed because the NCAA managed the contracts and ameliorated shares. In its very nature and structure the NCAA is socialistic. Now that conferences have become corporate the schools and the NCAA find themselves incompatible as the earners have grown to resent both the subsidized and the bureaucrats who administer it. And the government has grown to resent a system that profited all but the athletes. Besides, it's Biblical. "Do not muzzle an ox when it is treading out grain." Which means it is unholy to profit from the labor of the uncompensated.

The carnage comes when the subsidies stop.

(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:  

(10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.

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.