(09-30-2023 08:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 04:10 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 02:24 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Southern schools have won 22 of the last 25 championships. The USC victory was vacated. Reggie Bush and apartments. While it's not happening, if Ohio State joined the SEC or ACC it would be 24 of the last 25 with one vacated. And in that vacated year Auburn (undefeated) was left out and had 3 or 4 #1 draft picks playing and 2 of those were top 10. It was the game that led Slive to push for the CFP.

And to Gitanole, Florida State makes plenty of money now. You are top 15 in revenue and have been top 10. Recruiting will suffer if you play a Big 10 schedule. Why? Not much interest from the fan base, and players parents will have a hard time with the commutes to games. Kids tend to want to play locally. NIL is impacting that, but a cleaned up NIL may not be as much of a factor. That is to be determined. But your fans will be impacted in travel to away games and that too will impact your donations and revenue. And should the SEC decide to play all games internally, and that is a very viable option since all the money stays in house and is more profitable than the OOC games where every two years you lose revenue on the away exchange, then FSU could find itself very limited on the schedule.

I find your argument good for leverage in a negotiation, but not much in reality. The real argument to persuade the SEC is market penetration by the Big 10 and its impact upon the SEC's ad rates and revenue. There's the argument for inclusion. And in my informed opinion, this is why Clemson, Florida State, and possibly Miami would be seen as essential additions for the integrity of the SEC control over the region extending from the Southern border of Kentucky and North Carolina and South.

As you know, I've been saying that I think FSU and Clemson are likely to the SEC.

That said, we also know that the Big10 seems to have the state of Florida as a priority.

So who knows.

One place I'll disagree with Bryan1996 above is that money talks. And a lot of money talks loudly : )

Is that always enough to change the outcome? No - just ask Notre Dame.

But it often does.

All that said, I ''still'' think it's likely that we'll see FSU and Clemson (and maybe NC and a friend) to the SEC, with Miami (and one or more friends) to the Big10.

Miami has friends? I would think it would be the number of retired people from the Northeast or with Big 10 connections that would make Miami palpable for the Big 10. Ditto Georgia Tech. Their alums are ACC/SEC but Atlanta has a lot of Big 10 alums. Duke draws heavily from the Northeast and from California. Add those 3 to N.D. and you might have a path. But friends?

rofl

Be wary of Miami fans with torches and pitchforks headed your way lol

Kidding aside, I understand why some don't think GT will ever get an invite back to the SEC. But I still think they would be a good fit there.

That said, the Big10 should add them in a heartbeat. Atlanta/Georgia market - A state that is growing in population. upper level academics, and yes, AAU.

I think Virginia, Duke, GT and Miami make an interesting 4-some for the Big10, and have said so for awhile now.

But, as I've mentioned before, if NC leaves, I could see ND using the ACC to rebuild a conference, in which case, they'd probably like Miami and GT to stay.

NC leaving would, I think, change the inner-political dynamics of the conference. So after that, I think anything could be possible.

And since we're talking about the SEC, after reading a lot of your (and others') posts here, and also reading a bunch of articles, I think the SEC would do very well adding FSU, Clemson, NC, and Louisville. For quite awhile I thought that #4 would be NC state or VT, but in the end, I think adding Louisville is the smarter move for the SEC (even with Kentucky having had concerns with the idea in the past).

So who knows.

Louisville to the SEC has some reasons to think about at least. Their revenues are greater than any team outside of the P2 and the Big 3 in the ACC, and they're in fact greater than quite a few P2 schools, too. They're excellent (usually, and will be again) in basketball, and pretty darned good in football, too. My issue with them, however, is that Miami is just far more desirable, and several of the others, while behind Louisville in revenues, are better in football or are Flagships or Flaghip/AAU even.

Louisville is good, and they'd be able to thrive in the SEC, but I think that they're more in the ASU or CU category...interesting if we go to 24 or 28, but not getting a 2nd glance if we stop at 18 or 20.

From the outside looking in, I see two problems with Louisville joining the SEC:

1. Largely a commuter school, so a bad institutional fit;
2. A duplicative entry in a relatively small state. Yes, so is Clemson, but Clemson has its recent football success to fall back upon, and is a better institutional fit.

Depending on the extent to which the ACC is raided, I think Louisville winds up in the Big XII. They fit the eastern wing of that conference perfectly imho.

(10-01-2023 12:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN finds itself in a new and vulnerable position moving forward..........no B1G content.

It's one of the reasons that ESPN opted for 2/3 of the Big 12 content, so that they wouldn't run out of football content.

Basketball is going to require a different strategy.

Presently the best and most effective way for ESPN to keep the B1G from dipping down into the solid South is a healthy and stable ACC.

All good points. I haven't really gamed the ESPN/ACC situation out beyond "ESPN doesn't want to devalue a property they control through 2036 in order to slightly increase the value of a property they control through 2034", but this illustrates yet another reason that any movement before the 2030s is unlikely. Starting in 2030, ESPN could completeley change tack. Instead of getting zero B1G content, they could buy up ALL of the B1G media rights with a long term plan to drop the ACC after 2036. At that point, any time between 2030 and 2036 would be a great time for ESPN to start shifting ACC schools to either of the P2, and they could even triple down by getting the rest of the Big 12 in 2031. I think that this is very unlikely, not b/c they don't want the B1G, but rather b/c I think they'll be spending a whole lot on the NFL, NBA and CFP contracts already at that point. I do expect them to buy up something from the B1G next contract, but we'll see.

(10-01-2023 06:22 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 12:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN finds itself in a new and vulnerable position moving forward..........no B1G content.

It's one of the reasons that ESPN opted for 2/3 of the Big 12 content, so that they wouldn't run out of football content.

Basketball is going to require a different strategy.

Presently the best and most effective way for ESPN to keep the B1G from dipping down into the solid South is a healthy and stable ACC.

All good points. I haven't really gamed the ESPN/ACC situation out beyond "ESPN doesn't want to devalue a property they control through 2036 in order to slightly increase the value of a property they control through 2034", but this illustrates yet another reason that any movement before the 2030s is unlikely. Starting in 2030, ESPN could completeley change tack. Instead of getting zero B1G content, they could buy up ALL of the B1G media rights with a long term plan to drop the ACC after 2036. At that point, any time between 2030 and 2036 would be a great time for ESPN to start shifting ACC schools to either of the P2, and they could even triple down by getting the rest of the Big 12 in 2031. I think that this is very unlikely, not b/c they don't want the B1G, but rather b/c I think they'll be spending a whole lot on the NFL, NBA and CFP contracts already at that point. I do expect them to buy up something from the B1G next contract, but we'll see.

It's not going to take 10 or 12 years. Nobody has that amount of time to wait to play catch up. Think 2025 and you'll be thinking right.

IMO, the hang up is #8. The Magnificent 7 proclaimed themselves so that it wouldn't be a negotiation about UNC, FSU, and Clemson. There is a core within the ACC that truly desires to stay together. The hang up is the haggle over whether ESPN will include them in a move to the SEC or not. The hang up is over the SEC not wanting more than what is essential.

The compromise is over regionalism. ESPN let Sankey have his way with regard to Westward expansion that the SEC did not want, and I'm talking Arizona, Colorado, etc. ESPN doesn't want FOX advertising in its dominant area any more than the SEC wants the Big 10 doing it.

The crux of the issue is that the Virginia schools want to stay together as do the North Carolina schools.

The seven as you recall were Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Florida State, Miami, and Clemson. Note that if the SEC moved to 24 there would be 8 additions. Kansas has much to offer. I suspect that for this move to work Duke wants that slot. North Carolina knew Duke might be acceptable to the SEC but likely had doubts about North Carolina State. So unlike in 2011 this time the 2nd North Carolina school proposed is N.C. State. If that package is acceptable, they will push for Duke as #8. Sankey could balk.

Likely it will take ESPN covering their bases to keep a wholly secure South and a strong presence in the mid and large states. The protectionism here doesn't solely belong to the SEC. Once this matter is settled you could see a quick disbursement. It will likely happen in two stages. The first 4, then the next 4 after more additions are made to cover them. Or it could be the placement of Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., Louisville and Georgia Tech, and the freeing of Notre Dame. Maybe ESPN finds a slot for Wake too.

That move takes the SEC to 24. ESPN keeps a solid Southeast and Southwest, has access to 5 maybe 6 ACC schools in the Big 12. And who knows what Notre Dame will do. That works out the issues, keeps the old ACC together plus the football first schools, and likely gets the deal done. ESPN keeps 100% of roughly half of the ACC and clearly the best brands.

Should that happen I'm sure California and Stanford will find more interest from the Big 10. With no premier East Coast schools for the Big 10 to land their chances go way up and attention will likely turn to the West again.

This will be an ESPN/SEC/ACC matter should things come to this. And the Big 10 will have a clearer shot at Notre Dame, and Kansas as a bridge. It might work out well for most hoping for a P2 call.

And remember FOX and ESPN have 750 million reasons each to resolve this amicably.

SEC should jump to 24 with

UNC, DUke, NC State, UVA, VTech, Clemson, FSU and Georgia tech.

Big should jump to 24 with

California, Stanford, ND, Miami, Kansas and Syracuse

(10-01-2023 10:04 PM)bluesox Wrote:  SEC should jump to 24 with

UNC, DUke, NC State, UVA, VTech, Clemson, FSU and Georgia tech.

Big should jump to 24 with

California, Stanford, ND, Miami, Kansas and Syracuse

The SEC would be very hesitant to add 3 NC schools along with another SC school. That would be FIVE schools in the Carolinas. It would be a very ACC thing to do - which isn't a good thing. Sankey would draw a line in the sand at 2 NC schools. UNC plus one or the other.

Wouldn't rule out the SEC getting schools at partial shares. Why wouldn't they if the B1G could potentially scoop up these schools at partial shares? Although eight ACC schools seems far fetched. However, schools like KU and CU to the SEC don't seem as realistic as the ACC holdovers.

(10-02-2023 08:50 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Wouldn't rule out the SEC getting schools at partial shares. Why wouldn't they if the B1G could potentially scoop up these schools at partial shares? Although eight ACC schools seems far fetched. However, schools like KU and CU to the SEC don't seem as realistic as the ACC holdovers.

The SEC doesn't have to worry about partial shares. The new contract guarantees schools at pro rata. ESPN anticipated more movement and built it in. If a school gets an SEC offer they will still be full partners when they enter.

Eight ACC schools would not be the requirement or desire of the SEC. it would be the requirement of the key ACC schools and ESPN's issue to handle. ESPN has as much to protect in the Deep South as the SEC. Both take it seriously. Farfetched or not it is a possible, if not likely, outcome depending upon the inventory requirements of ESPN.

In that grouping the SEC would be picking up 4 AAU schools and the two most valuable football brands. The major compromise would be N.C. State and Virginia Tech, with N.C. State being the 3rd North Carolina school. And that last part would be the problem when that slot could be used for a new market.

(09-30-2023 09:43 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B1G won't take Clemson or FSU - no AAU

The SEC won't take them - they have been pretty clear they have no interest in expanding right now

And... when ACC goes belly-up -

Why take FSU when you can take Miami?

They are never going anywhere but the B12

This is always what I struggle with: If the Big Ten isn't going to take Clemson or FSU, why would the SEC?

The SEC already has all of the on-field/on-court clout it needs. There are virtually no candidates that would actively move the revenue needle positively.

So what's the benefit to the SEC? As an Alabama fan, I don't ever want an SEC in which my Tide doesn't play Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, and Ole Miss every year. If the revenue isn't there (it isn't), and the Big Ten isn't interested (I don't think they are), what's in it for the current members to add these other programs?

(10-02-2023 12:50 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 09:43 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B1G won't take Clemson or FSU - no AAU

The SEC won't take them - they have been pretty clear they have no interest in expanding right now

And... when ACC goes belly-up -

Why take FSU when you can take Miami?

They are never going anywhere but the B12

This is always what I struggle with: If the Big Ten isn't going to take Clemson or FSU, why would the SEC?

The SEC already has all of the on-field/on-court clout it needs. There are virtually no candidates that would actively move the revenue needle positively.

So what's the benefit to the SEC? As an Alabama fan, I don't ever want an SEC in which my Tide doesn't play Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, and Ole Miss every year. If the revenue isn't there (it isn't), and the Big Ten isn't interested (I don't think they are), what's in it for the current members to add these other programs?

Just last year on this very board folks were saying "the B1G won't take Miami, they're not AAU". Do people really believe that the smarty pants decsion-makers in the Big Ten have zero foresight? Things change. Especially fast in a place like FL right now.

(10-02-2023 12:50 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 09:43 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B1G won't take Clemson or FSU - no AAU

The SEC won't take them - they have been pretty clear they have no interest in expanding right now

And... when ACC goes belly-up -

Why take FSU when you can take Miami?

They are never going anywhere but the B12

This is always what I struggle with: If the Big Ten isn't going to take Clemson or FSU, why would the SEC?

The SEC already has all of the on-field/on-court clout it needs. There are virtually no candidates that would actively move the revenue needle positively.

So what's the benefit to the SEC? As an Alabama fan, I don't ever want an SEC in which my Tide doesn't play Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, and Ole Miss every year. If the revenue isn't there (it isn't), and the Big Ten isn't interested (I don't think they are), what's in it for the current members to add these other programs?

Because Clemson and Florida State represent 24.7% of the total value of the ACC. Add North Carolina and the SEC picks up almost 1/3rd of the total value of the ACC. Toss in Miami or Virginia and 4 schools deliver nearly 40% of the total value of the ACC. Perhaps the Big 10 would not take Clemson, but the SEC doesn't want them splitting our advertising revenue in Florida. Florida holds 42% of the college football viewership in Florida and FSU holds about 35% of it. Miami is another 19% on a good year less on a bad one. The Big 10 absolutely would take Florida State to get a large share of ad money in Florida. The issue is that FSU in the ACC was with a conference which didn't carry as much advertising clout. The Big 10 is wholly different matter as their markets reach all over now.

What the SEC has benefitted from is having essentially a monopoly over the markets of the Southeast. They aren't letting those go. Sankey wanted to stay regional rather than going national and he isn't about to screw up a key revenue stream by letting the Big 10 take schools which command a significant % of one of our markets and do so with a conference which receives as high a rate as the SEC.

And that's just one issue.

The other issue is that Super Conferences are forming and the networks want them to provide a particular number of games and the numbers for those conferences that have been tossed out there are 20, 22, or 24 schools each. With the NFL beginning to look at supporting perhaps 50, there is a strong likelihood that 24 members may be the future of both the SEC and Big 10.

FOX is picking up product for this at less than full shares. The SEC doesn't operate that way and ESPN has a pro rata clause in the new SEC contract.

It's not a matter of growing with schools who pay their way. Now it's a matter of growing with the best available schools left.

If the SEC is to remain regional the best available schools to 24 will come from the ACC, and Kansas is the only one left in the Big 12 which delivers both content we need in hoops and has a higher valuation than anyone in the ACC.

So the issue now is simply taking the best markets and the best draws in them.
Clemson and Florida State are the top two prizes in the ACC for viewers, attendance, and football. North Carolina and Virginia Tech for the two states with close to 21 million people in them. You control those states at top rate with Virginia and N.C. State. Miami is not essential to the SEC in terms of market share but it gives them 3 games a week and 2 when they play other Florida schools in a state of 22 million and that's money in the bank for ads and for viewership quality games. The question is really only one for the SEC. Do you take Kansas to complete the west and compliment Kentucky and North Carolina, or do you take Duke. Kansas is the better play. Duke is more appealing to the presidents. Maybe something happens and we can get both.

But this old 1991 and 2011 thinking of they have to pay their way in is no longer applicable. If the networks will pay for them to have the setup they want and the inventory requirements for top dollar games, then 20 or 24 it is.

Now, since the SEC refuses to expand outside of its new region, any key school lost in our region to the Big 10 is one we can't make up for by taking one on the West Coast. So, the goal is to take the best 4 or best 8 (depending on the determined final number) that we can get out of our region.

It's simple and to the point. And all these fans who grumble about the competitiveness of some of those schools, shut up and sober up. You can't bring in Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson and Florida State without growing your middle and bottom. Basketball first schools take care of that bottom and grow our markets and revenue in the Winter. Schools like Virginia Tech and N.C State add to the middle. Miami floats between middle and upper end much like Tennessee, Auburn, L.S.U., Texas A&M and others.

20 or especially 24 return the win/loss balance to the SEC which is currently going to be top heavy. And those Virginia and Carolina schools deliver combined the equivalent of another Florida in terms of viewership and with the national draw of the SEC it floats their boats and ours.

(09-30-2023 11:22 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 10:56 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 10:37 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Just remember money talks. If the Big Ten offers Florida State and Clemson a life changing amount of money more than the SEC, these schools will be going to the Big Ten. If the Big Ten offered ALABAMA a life changing amount of money more than the SEC, Alabama will be going to the Big Ten, don't kid yourselves. Now of course AAU and Alabama's academics will be an issue but Alabama is a game changer in college football and money wise and "life changing money" between the Big Ten and SEC is really going to be a ton of money. In addition, Alabama and the SEC has way more history than Florida State and Clemson do, I'm not kidding myself, Alabama isn't going to the Big Ten in my lifetime. Hey if I told you in 2021 that USC and UCLA were going to the Big Ten you probably wouldn't have believed me either.

Last year the Big Ten didn't get into the CFP Championship game but for the first time they did get two in the semifinals (both Michigan and Ohio State). Once the Playoff goes to 12 teams, I expect Penn State to make the Playoff at least a few times based on the last few years and the trend for USC, Washington, and Oregon seems to be upward. Also next year the Big Ten gets CBS all to themselves and we know what CBS did with hyping up the SEC the last 20 or so years. I'm not saying the Big Ten will win a national championship or two in the next ten years but I say don't sleep on us.

OSU brought in $37m more than bama last year ($251m vs $214m). How "life changing" was that extra $37m for OSU? Texas could have made more in the B1G, probably quite a bit more, but it's a credit to them that they decided that Winning was more important than making a bit more money but turning into the next Nebraska.

When you're a $120m a year program, an extra $30m can be "life changing". When you're a $220m a year program, the only thing that's "life changing" is winning titles.

Texas has won, what, 1 national title in the past ~50 years, and all of a sudden they are going to start winning by joining the SEC? You mean just like Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina. Do you honestly think the BIG caused Nebraska’s fall from elite status? Don't get me wrong, Texas fits the SEC, but don't act like a relationship with the SEC guarantees National Titles for newbies.

My memory is foggy, but I'd say FSU and the ACC relationship has been the best of any in the newer conference realignment scenarios? Pretty much all others have been duds.

You're not wrong about FSU's relationship with the ACC, it's been GREAT for FSU.

Texas isn't guaranteed of winning more titles in the SEC of course, but they WERE guaranteed to become 2nd class citizens and lose out on the top recruits in their own region if they joined the B1G while A&M was in the SEC. So, perhaps we could say that for Texas it was a choice of "more money" or "a greater chance to get the best recruits". We've all seen plenty of programs over the decades that did a lot with great recruits, and other programs that did not, so the better players are no guarantee of more wins. But, all things being equal, they will have a better chance of winning more games in the SEC than they would have in the B1G.

I also agree that this is not necessarily true for Nebraska or PSU. They both may or may not have done better in the SEC than they have done in the B1G. However, it's indisputable that they both did FAR better in the couple of decades leading up to joining the B1G than they have done since joining. For the newer teams in the SEC, I'd say that the 6 of us have performed a bit better on average, with USC and A&M showing marked improvements, but USC has dropped off again since Spurrier left,. A&M was in one of our worst periods in history in the decade of the 2000s (which coincided with a very strong UT under peak Mac Brown), but we were far better in the 90s with regular top 10 teams. You could say that we've more bounced "back" rather than bounced "up" since joining the SEC.

It's an opinion, though a reasonable one that is supported by the evidence, to say that joining the SEC has been far better for A&M than joining the B1G has been for Nebraska.

edit: and that 1 UT title in the past 50 years is more than all but one B1G team has won, and would represent 40% of the 2.5 titles that the B1G has won during that time.

(09-30-2023 12:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Only two teams have won national titles *while under the B1G banner* in the past 50 years. BUT Penn State won two as an independent in the 80s (plus an undefeated season in 1994 in which future fellow B1G member won the title), Nebraska won three in the 90s (plus two more just prior to that 50 year window), and USC won two in the 2000s and three in the 70s (one of which was just outside that 50 year window in 1972). Washington won one in 1991.

It’s shaky at best to say that these programs have not won titles because of B1G membership. The incoming teams from the Pac haven’t even played a down as B1G teams. The others have either had bad hires with coaching (Nebraska), or either keeping a coach too long or being good but not great.

FSU and Clemson wouldn’t stop winning because they’d be in the B1G. Rather, they’d be THE southern teams in their conference and would have the opportunity to dominate.

I completely buy that the preference is the SEC, but they’ll go B1G all the way over the ACC.

Fortunately, they'll be able to see exactly how large that ACC/B1G gap will be over the next couple of years (probably) before having to make a decision. I'm betting that the gap will be $20-25m instead of the $30-40m that has been in all the headlines over the past year. I'm betting that Clemson or FSU win another title (in the ACC) before any B1G school wins one. Does that mean that they'd still pass on a theoretical B1G offer if Sankey expressed 0 interest? Probably not, but it would at least give them pause, and in that situation it is entirely possible that one or both of them could get enough sweeteners to choose to stay in the ACC. Bobby Bowden's statement about the ease of winning the ACC Title compared to winning the SEC applies almost as well to the B1G, and that title just got a lot harder with 3 more big Football Brands joining in 2024.

FWIW, I believe that the above scenario is VERY unlikely b/c the SEC is going to invite both Clemson and FSU the instant they sort out their ACC situation, and they wouldn't turn us down today.

(10-02-2023 02:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 11:22 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 10:56 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 10:37 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Just remember money talks. If the Big Ten offers Florida State and Clemson a life changing amount of money more than the SEC, these schools will be going to the Big Ten. If the Big Ten offered ALABAMA a life changing amount of money more than the SEC, Alabama will be going to the Big Ten, don't kid yourselves. Now of course AAU and Alabama's academics will be an issue but Alabama is a game changer in college football and money wise and "life changing money" between the Big Ten and SEC is really going to be a ton of money. In addition, Alabama and the SEC has way more history than Florida State and Clemson do, I'm not kidding myself, Alabama isn't going to the Big Ten in my lifetime. Hey if I told you in 2021 that USC and UCLA were going to the Big Ten you probably wouldn't have believed me either.

Last year the Big Ten didn't get into the CFP Championship game but for the first time they did get two in the semifinals (both Michigan and Ohio State). Once the Playoff goes to 12 teams, I expect Penn State to make the Playoff at least a few times based on the last few years and the trend for USC, Washington, and Oregon seems to be upward. Also next year the Big Ten gets CBS all to themselves and we know what CBS did with hyping up the SEC the last 20 or so years. I'm not saying the Big Ten will win a national championship or two in the next ten years but I say don't sleep on us.

OSU brought in $37m more than bama last year ($251m vs $214m). How "life changing" was that extra $37m for OSU? Texas could have made more in the B1G, probably quite a bit more, but it's a credit to them that they decided that Winning was more important than making a bit more money but turning into the next Nebraska.

When you're a $120m a year program, an extra $30m can be "life changing". When you're a $220m a year program, the only thing that's "life changing" is winning titles.

Texas has won, what, 1 national title in the past ~50 years, and all of a sudden they are going to start winning by joining the SEC? You mean just like Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina. Do you honestly think the BIG caused Nebraska’s fall from elite status? Don't get me wrong, Texas fits the SEC, but don't act like a relationship with the SEC guarantees National Titles for newbies.

My memory is foggy, but I'd say FSU and the ACC relationship has been the best of any in the newer conference realignment scenarios? Pretty much all others have been duds.

You're not wrong about FSU's relationship with the ACC, it's been GREAT for FSU.

Texas isn't guaranteed of winning more titles in the SEC of course, but they WERE guaranteed to become 2nd class citizens and lose out on the top recruits in their own region if they joined the B1G while A&M was in the SEC. So, perhaps we could say that for Texas it was a choice of "more money" or "a greater chance to get the best recruits". We've all seen plenty of programs over the decades that did a lot with great recruits, and other programs that did not, so the better players are no guarantee of more wins. But, all things being equal, they will have a better chance of winning more games in the SEC than they would have in the B1G.

I also agree that this is not necessarily true for Nebraska or PSU. They both may or may not have done better in the SEC than they have done in the B1G. However, it's indisputable that they both did FAR better in the couple of decades leading up to joining the B1G than they have done since joining. For the newer teams in the SEC, I'd say that the 6 of us have performed a bit better on average, with USC and A&M showing marked improvements, but USC has dropped off again since Spurrier left,. A&M was in one of our worst periods in history in the decade of the 2000s (which coincided with a very strong UT under peak Mac Brown), but we were far better in the 90s with regular top 10 teams. You could say that we've more bounced "back" rather than bounced "up" since joining the SEC.

It's an opinion, though a reasonable one that is supported by the evidence, to say that joining the SEC has been far better for A&M than joining the B1G has been for Nebraska.

edit: and that 1 UT title in the past 50 years is more than all but one B1G team has won, and would represent 40% of the 2.5 titles that the B1G has won during that time.

It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

(10-02-2023 09:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 08:50 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Wouldn't rule out the SEC getting schools at partial shares. Why wouldn't they if the B1G could potentially scoop up these schools at partial shares? Although eight ACC schools seems far fetched. However, schools like KU and CU to the SEC don't seem as realistic as the ACC holdovers.

The SEC doesn't have to worry about partial shares. The new contract guarantees schools at pro rata. ESPN anticipated more movement and built it in. If a school gets an SEC offer they will still be full partners when they enter.

Eight ACC schools would not be the requirement or desire of the SEC. it would be the requirement of the key ACC schools and ESPN's issue to handle. ESPN has as much to protect in the Deep South as the SEC. Both take it seriously. Farfetched or not it is a possible, if not likely, outcome depending upon the inventory requirements of ESPN.

In that grouping the SEC would be picking up 4 AAU schools and the two most valuable football brands. The major compromise would be N.C. State and Virginia Tech, with N.C. State being the 3rd North Carolina school. And that last part would be the problem when that slot could be used for a new market.

VT is hardly a compromise, but NC St, especially as the 3rd North Carolina school, might be tough to get across the finish line. We'd probably demand to swap them out for CU or KU, and the others would readily agree to it as half of them would have no option of joining the B1G. Would be even more interesting if we grab 6 ACC and 2 from the Big 12 (KU and CU most likely), then you have a Big 12 region, an ACC region, and the central "SEC 12" region. I know that divisions aren't so popular today, but at 24 they might come back into vogue. Then you'd have:

Big 12 division: A&M, OU, UT, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado
SECW division: Arky, LSU, Ole Miss, Ms St, Bama, Auburn
SECE division: UF, KY, UGA, Tenn, Vandy, USC
ACC division: Magnificent 7 minus NC St

(10-02-2023 12:50 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 09:43 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B1G won't take Clemson or FSU - no AAU

The SEC won't take them - they have been pretty clear they have no interest in expanding right now

And... when ACC goes belly-up -

Why take FSU when you can take Miami?

They are never going anywhere but the B12

This is always what I struggle with: If the Big Ten isn't going to take Clemson or FSU, why would the SEC?

The SEC already has all of the on-field/on-court clout it needs. There are virtually no candidates that would actively move the revenue needle positively.

So what's the benefit to the SEC? As an Alabama fan, I don't ever want an SEC in which my Tide doesn't play Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, and Ole Miss every year. If the revenue isn't there (it isn't), and the Big Ten isn't interested (I don't think they are), what's in it for the current members to add these other programs?

The Big 10 is interested, if they were AAU then they'd be slam dunk adds. The 2 of them are a better 1-2 punch than UW/UO. However, are they so strong that the B1G will change 100+ years' worth of snobbery to invite them? That's a very different question with an uncertain answer.

(10-02-2023 02:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 11:22 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 10:56 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 10:37 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Just remember money talks. If the Big Ten offers Florida State and Clemson a life changing amount of money more than the SEC, these schools will be going to the Big Ten. If the Big Ten offered ALABAMA a life changing amount of money more than the SEC, Alabama will be going to the Big Ten, don't kid yourselves. Now of course AAU and Alabama's academics will be an issue but Alabama is a game changer in college football and money wise and "life changing money" between the Big Ten and SEC is really going to be a ton of money. In addition, Alabama and the SEC has way more history than Florida State and Clemson do, I'm not kidding myself, Alabama isn't going to the Big Ten in my lifetime. Hey if I told you in 2021 that USC and UCLA were going to the Big Ten you probably wouldn't have believed me either.

Last year the Big Ten didn't get into the CFP Championship game but for the first time they did get two in the semifinals (both Michigan and Ohio State). Once the Playoff goes to 12 teams, I expect Penn State to make the Playoff at least a few times based on the last few years and the trend for USC, Washington, and Oregon seems to be upward. Also next year the Big Ten gets CBS all to themselves and we know what CBS did with hyping up the SEC the last 20 or so years. I'm not saying the Big Ten will win a national championship or two in the next ten years but I say don't sleep on us.

OSU brought in $37m more than bama last year ($251m vs $214m). How "life changing" was that extra $37m for OSU? Texas could have made more in the B1G, probably quite a bit more, but it's a credit to them that they decided that Winning was more important than making a bit more money but turning into the next Nebraska.

When you're a $120m a year program, an extra $30m can be "life changing". When you're a $220m a year program, the only thing that's "life changing" is winning titles.

Texas has won, what, 1 national title in the past ~50 years, and all of a sudden they are going to start winning by joining the SEC? You mean just like Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina. Do you honestly think the BIG caused Nebraska’s fall from elite status? Don't get me wrong, Texas fits the SEC, but don't act like a relationship with the SEC guarantees National Titles for newbies.

My memory is foggy, but I'd say FSU and the ACC relationship has been the best of any in the newer conference realignment scenarios? Pretty much all others have been duds.

You're not wrong about FSU's relationship with the ACC, it's been GREAT for FSU.

Texas isn't guaranteed of winning more titles in the SEC of course, but they WERE guaranteed to become 2nd class citizens and lose out on the top recruits in their own region if they joined the B1G while A&M was in the SEC. So, perhaps we could say that for Texas it was a choice of "more money" or "a greater chance to get the best recruits". We've all seen plenty of programs over the decades that did a lot with great recruits, and other programs that did not, so the better players are no guarantee of more wins. But, all things being equal, they will have a better chance of winning more games in the SEC than they would have in the B1G.

I also agree that this is not necessarily true for Nebraska or PSU. They both may or may not have done better in the SEC than they have done in the B1G. However, it's indisputable that they both did FAR better in the couple of decades leading up to joining the B1G than they have done since joining. For the newer teams in the SEC, I'd say that the 6 of us have performed a bit better on average, with USC and A&M showing marked improvements, but USC has dropped off again since Spurrier left,. A&M was in one of our worst periods in history in the decade of the 2000s (which coincided with a very strong UT under peak Mac Brown), but we were far better in the 90s with regular top 10 teams. You could say that we've more bounced "back" rather than bounced "up" since joining the SEC.

It's an opinion, though a reasonable one that is supported by the evidence, to say that joining the SEC has been far better for A&M than joining the B1G has been for Nebraska.

edit: and that 1 UT title in the past 50 years is more than all but one B1G team has won, and would represent 40% of the 2.5 titles that the B1G has won during that time.

It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

I will defer to Bobby Bowden on this topic...

247Sports: FSU was an independent until joining the ACC in 1991. It’s common knowledge the SEC was also interested in the Seminoles, but what did you want at the time?

Bowden: “They did want us, they did invite us to join the SEC. Everybody thought we would join. In fact, I thought we would but our administration — the president and others — wanted the ACC, which really was better for us. It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.”

If Bobby Bowden thought that the ACC was an easier path to Championships (even back in the '90s), and he won 2 of them while putting FSU on the map, who are we to argue?

(09-30-2023 03:33 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 02:01 PM)gwelymernans Wrote:  While I think the B1G would gladly offer an invite to FSU and Clemson, were they to free themselves of that pesky GoR in some manner, about the only way I see them accepting a B1G offer over an SEC offer is if ESPN ticks them off by opposing any effort to get out of the GoR or rejects a serious plan to transition them to the SEC prior to the early '30s when the GoR's end is in sight. Even then, it wouldn't be them rejecting the SEC or favoring the B1G, it would be them rejecting ESPN for perceived or real slights.

That’s possible, as these things can get very emotional, but it seems kind of like biting off their noses to spite their faces. The SEC is so overwhelmingly the best choice, and we so clearly want them, that I expect it would take a lot more than hurt feelings towards our media partner to convince them to look elsewhere. Now, once they’re in, could they push for other media partners than a weakening-by-day ESPN? Heck ya they could, and after our kerfluffle over a 9th game recently they might just find fertile ground for exploring alternatives. Perhaps not of course, but I do think that we won’t be offering any sort of ESPN discount in 2034; if they end up with the entire SEC package next time, it will be bc they outbid everyone else.

That absolutely needs to be an ongoing concern, and applicable with all contracting with corporate media. ESPN can flip, end up with new owners, sell off part or all of their assets, and overhaul their executives fast, for better or worse.

Having two or more broadcasting outlets is not a dumb approach when the industry is less stabilized than what gets projected.

(10-02-2023 02:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 11:22 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 10:56 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  OSU brought in $37m more than bama last year ($251m vs $214m). How "life changing" was that extra $37m for OSU? Texas could have made more in the B1G, probably quite a bit more, but it's a credit to them that they decided that Winning was more important than making a bit more money but turning into the next Nebraska.

When you're a $120m a year program, an extra $30m can be "life changing". When you're a $220m a year program, the only thing that's "life changing" is winning titles.

Texas has won, what, 1 national title in the past ~50 years, and all of a sudden they are going to start winning by joining the SEC? You mean just like Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina. Do you honestly think the BIG caused Nebraska’s fall from elite status? Don't get me wrong, Texas fits the SEC, but don't act like a relationship with the SEC guarantees National Titles for newbies.

My memory is foggy, but I'd say FSU and the ACC relationship has been the best of any in the newer conference realignment scenarios? Pretty much all others have been duds.

You're not wrong about FSU's relationship with the ACC, it's been GREAT for FSU.

Texas isn't guaranteed of winning more titles in the SEC of course, but they WERE guaranteed to become 2nd class citizens and lose out on the top recruits in their own region if they joined the B1G while A&M was in the SEC. So, perhaps we could say that for Texas it was a choice of "more money" or "a greater chance to get the best recruits". We've all seen plenty of programs over the decades that did a lot with great recruits, and other programs that did not, so the better players are no guarantee of more wins. But, all things being equal, they will have a better chance of winning more games in the SEC than they would have in the B1G.

I also agree that this is not necessarily true for Nebraska or PSU. They both may or may not have done better in the SEC than they have done in the B1G. However, it's indisputable that they both did FAR better in the couple of decades leading up to joining the B1G than they have done since joining. For the newer teams in the SEC, I'd say that the 6 of us have performed a bit better on average, with USC and A&M showing marked improvements, but USC has dropped off again since Spurrier left,. A&M was in one of our worst periods in history in the decade of the 2000s (which coincided with a very strong UT under peak Mac Brown), but we were far better in the 90s with regular top 10 teams. You could say that we've more bounced "back" rather than bounced "up" since joining the SEC.

It's an opinion, though a reasonable one that is supported by the evidence, to say that joining the SEC has been far better for A&M than joining the B1G has been for Nebraska.

edit: and that 1 UT title in the past 50 years is more than all but one B1G team has won, and would represent 40% of the 2.5 titles that the B1G has won during that time.

It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

I will defer to Bobby Bowden on this topic...

247Sports: FSU was an independent until joining the ACC in 1991. It’s common knowledge the SEC was also interested in the Seminoles, but what did you want at the time?

Bowden: “They did want us, they did invite us to join the SEC. Everybody thought we would join. In fact, I thought we would but our administration — the president and others — wanted the ACC, which really was better for us. It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.”

If Bobby Bowden thought that the ACC was an easier path to Championships (even back in the '90s), and he won 2 of them while putting FSU on the map, who are we to argue?

We've hashed this out before. Bobby was always folksy and self-deprecating (and forgetful). There is nothing to show that Mississippi St or UGA or LSU of the 80s/90s would have stood in the way more than the BEEFY non-conf that included MIAMI every single year of those decades (no one else can say that) and schools like UF (also every year), ND, Mich, USC, LSU, etc. And your Aggies too! Imagine if FSU dropped Miami in '91. Not saying they would have...but you never know. My bet would be that FSU would have had another big trophy if it had gone the SEC route in the early 90's. Especially if it played the SEC plus cupcake non-conf schedule.

SEC recency bias clouds this. The conference just wasn't that great in that era and FSU beat its best regularly.

(10-02-2023 02:52 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 11:22 AM)cubucks Wrote:  Texas has won, what, 1 national title in the past ~50 years, and all of a sudden they are going to start winning by joining the SEC? You mean just like Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina. Do you honestly think the BIG caused Nebraska’s fall from elite status? Don't get me wrong, Texas fits the SEC, but don't act like a relationship with the SEC guarantees National Titles for newbies.

My memory is foggy, but I'd say FSU and the ACC relationship has been the best of any in the newer conference realignment scenarios? Pretty much all others have been duds.

You're not wrong about FSU's relationship with the ACC, it's been GREAT for FSU.

Texas isn't guaranteed of winning more titles in the SEC of course, but they WERE guaranteed to become 2nd class citizens and lose out on the top recruits in their own region if they joined the B1G while A&M was in the SEC. So, perhaps we could say that for Texas it was a choice of "more money" or "a greater chance to get the best recruits". We've all seen plenty of programs over the decades that did a lot with great recruits, and other programs that did not, so the better players are no guarantee of more wins. But, all things being equal, they will have a better chance of winning more games in the SEC than they would have in the B1G.

I also agree that this is not necessarily true for Nebraska or PSU. They both may or may not have done better in the SEC than they have done in the B1G. However, it's indisputable that they both did FAR better in the couple of decades leading up to joining the B1G than they have done since joining. For the newer teams in the SEC, I'd say that the 6 of us have performed a bit better on average, with USC and A&M showing marked improvements, but USC has dropped off again since Spurrier left,. A&M was in one of our worst periods in history in the decade of the 2000s (which coincided with a very strong UT under peak Mac Brown), but we were far better in the 90s with regular top 10 teams. You could say that we've more bounced "back" rather than bounced "up" since joining the SEC.

It's an opinion, though a reasonable one that is supported by the evidence, to say that joining the SEC has been far better for A&M than joining the B1G has been for Nebraska.

edit: and that 1 UT title in the past 50 years is more than all but one B1G team has won, and would represent 40% of the 2.5 titles that the B1G has won during that time.

It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

I will defer to Bobby Bowden on this topic...

247Sports: FSU was an independent until joining the ACC in 1991. It’s common knowledge the SEC was also interested in the Seminoles, but what did you want at the time?

Bowden: “They did want us, they did invite us to join the SEC. Everybody thought we would join. In fact, I thought we would but our administration — the president and others — wanted the ACC, which really was better for us. It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.”

If Bobby Bowden thought that the ACC was an easier path to Championships (even back in the '90s), and he won 2 of them while putting FSU on the map, who are we to argue?

We've hashed this out before. Bobby was always folksy and self-deprecating (and forgetful). There is nothing to show that Mississippi St or UGA or LSU of the 80s/90s would have stood in the way more than the BEEFY non-conf that included MIAMI every single year of those decades (no one else can say that) and schools like UF (also every year), ND, Mich, USC, LSU, etc. And your Aggies too! Imagine if FSU dropped Miami in '91. Not saying they would have...but you never know. My bet would be that FSU would have had another big trophy if it had gone the SEC route in the early 90's. Especially if it played the SEC plus cupcake non-conf schedule.

SEC recency bias clouds this. The conference just wasn't that great in that era and FSU beat its best regularly.

Until Bowden arrived FSU was a homecoming whipping boy for SEC schools. If you are going to cherry pick history, I'll make you own all of it. FSU of the late 80's and early 90's was a good as anyone. Bowden was the reason. When Bobby took over FSU he did a fantastic job of building a program, and when he left it the trajectory was downward within a few years. Norvell, IMO, is the best thing that has come along since Bowden. Even Jimbo's natty in 2013 was still riding that wave and Winston, like Auburn rode Cam 2 years earlier. Jimbo is too disorganized to win at the top level consistently. I think FSU found that out.

And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Oh, and one other thing, SEC recency bias? It's been going on for over 20 years now in terms of dominating championships. I wouldn't call 20+ years recent.

(10-02-2023 02:52 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 11:22 AM)cubucks Wrote:  Texas has won, what, 1 national title in the past ~50 years, and all of a sudden they are going to start winning by joining the SEC? You mean just like Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina. Do you honestly think the BIG caused Nebraska’s fall from elite status? Don't get me wrong, Texas fits the SEC, but don't act like a relationship with the SEC guarantees National Titles for newbies.

My memory is foggy, but I'd say FSU and the ACC relationship has been the best of any in the newer conference realignment scenarios? Pretty much all others have been duds.

You're not wrong about FSU's relationship with the ACC, it's been GREAT for FSU.

Texas isn't guaranteed of winning more titles in the SEC of course, but they WERE guaranteed to become 2nd class citizens and lose out on the top recruits in their own region if they joined the B1G while A&M was in the SEC. So, perhaps we could say that for Texas it was a choice of "more money" or "a greater chance to get the best recruits". We've all seen plenty of programs over the decades that did a lot with great recruits, and other programs that did not, so the better players are no guarantee of more wins. But, all things being equal, they will have a better chance of winning more games in the SEC than they would have in the B1G.

I also agree that this is not necessarily true for Nebraska or PSU. They both may or may not have done better in the SEC than they have done in the B1G. However, it's indisputable that they both did FAR better in the couple of decades leading up to joining the B1G than they have done since joining. For the newer teams in the SEC, I'd say that the 6 of us have performed a bit better on average, with USC and A&M showing marked improvements, but USC has dropped off again since Spurrier left,. A&M was in one of our worst periods in history in the decade of the 2000s (which coincided with a very strong UT under peak Mac Brown), but we were far better in the 90s with regular top 10 teams. You could say that we've more bounced "back" rather than bounced "up" since joining the SEC.

It's an opinion, though a reasonable one that is supported by the evidence, to say that joining the SEC has been far better for A&M than joining the B1G has been for Nebraska.

edit: and that 1 UT title in the past 50 years is more than all but one B1G team has won, and would represent 40% of the 2.5 titles that the B1G has won during that time.

It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

I will defer to Bobby Bowden on this topic...

247Sports: FSU was an independent until joining the ACC in 1991. It’s common knowledge the SEC was also interested in the Seminoles, but what did you want at the time?

Bowden: “They did want us, they did invite us to join the SEC. Everybody thought we would join. In fact, I thought we would but our administration — the president and others — wanted the ACC, which really was better for us. It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.”

If Bobby Bowden thought that the ACC was an easier path to Championships (even back in the '90s), and he won 2 of them while putting FSU on the map, who are we to argue?

We've hashed this out before. Bobby was always folksy and self-deprecating (and forgetful). There is nothing to show that Mississippi St or UGA or LSU of the 80s/90s would have stood in the way more than the BEEFY non-conf that included MIAMI every single year of those decades (no one else can say that) and schools like UF (also every year), ND, Mich, USC, LSU, etc. And your Aggies too! Imagine if FSU dropped Miami in '91. Not saying they would have...but you never know. My bet would be that FSU would have had another big trophy if it had gone the SEC route in the early 90's. Especially if it played the SEC plus cupcake non-conf schedule.

SEC recency bias clouds this. The conference just wasn't that great in that era and FSU beat its best regularly.

All we have hashed out is that I've accepted that Bobby Bowden meant exactly what he said, and you're trying to spin what he wrote to fit your agenda.