(11-04-2013 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Having a demographic advantage is only profitable if that advantage can be exploited. So far there aren't many indications that it is being maximized.

That just means that the ACC has great potential which hasn't come close to be maximized.

You have to stop looking at the situation as being SEC vs. ACC, but view it as ESPN content vs. everything else. The population in the section of the country that the "properties" that ESPN has under contract is already greater than any other section in the US.
Instead of looking for the school(s) that would enhance the SEC, we should really be discussing the 4 schools that would maximize the SEC/ACC viewership. When it comes to dollars.....we are really on the same team. I think Slive and Swofford already realize the situation and if anything is ever done between the SEC and the ACC it will be beneficial to both.

(11-04-2013 08:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Having a demographic advantage is only profitable if that advantage can be exploited. So far there aren't many indications that it is being maximized.

That just means that the ACC has great potential which hasn't come close to be maximized.

You have to stop looking at the situation as being SEC vs. ACC, but view it as ESPN content vs. everything else. The population in the section of the country that the "properties" that ESPN has under contract is already greater than any other section in the US.
Instead of looking for the school(s) that would enhance the SEC, we should really be discussing the 4 schools that would maximize the SEC/ACC viewership. When it comes to dollars.....we are really on the same team. I think Slive and Swofford already realize the situation and if anything is ever done between the SEC and the ACC it will be beneficial to both.

XLance we have been in agreement on this since I suggested that the SEC/ACC should share the network and forget about poaching. An intact ACC is the best buffer for the SEC and by sharing our footprints we only earn more. I still say we could maximize by going to 18 a piece out of the Big 12 leaving at least Kansas for the Big 10 to make sure 8 are taken.

My response is to the growing sense of giddiness that some of the ACC posters have as to their own inflated sense of what the ACC is "actually" worth. Can they maximize their footprint? Yes, but it will be a work in progress for more than a decade and probably closer to two.

But as far as you point out that ESPN in essence owns the best region for college football in the country, I totally agree. The fact that ESPN consistently has the highest rated games each week is even further proof of the synergy of the WWL and the best region of the country. The way this gets maximized is by more cooperation between the SEC and ACC.

The only thing that could destabilize this is if the corporate mouse decides to cut overhead further and then desires to consolidate its best products into one larger conference while subletting the other properties by moving them to other conferences, or creating one, in which their ownership is shared and not their total expense.

But we'll see. The favored situation for the ACC and SEC should be to share as much as possible in the era of the networks. The ACC can help the joint effort by dominating the Winter and Spring, we both do well with the Spring and Summer, and the SEC does dominate the Fall. Together we could provide the best all around sports network year round, and do it hands down. To me that is the way to optimize the region and the cable profits.

(11-03-2013 10:29 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  It would be absolutely foolish to for any team not named Kentucky to leave the SEC and that would still be foolish.

If you were assuming a potential B1G invite, UK is not getting that this century (not that it would matter).

(11-03-2013 10:31 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:25 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:03 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I just cant see any power conference adding OSU if you already have OU.

OK is a small market state and OU is just not enough of a prize to give up something as insanely valuable as an additional expansion slot to give to their tag-a-long so they can make their politicians happy.

But since OU cant just leave OSU, that really scratches them off the list for expansion by the B1G and SEC because neither can afford to give a slot to OSU.

Unless the little brothers, TT, OSU, and KSU find homes in the PAC. The PAC voted down taking OU and OSU because they wanted UT, they thought those two schools would be sort of on an island, or more accurately, a peninsula, and they did not want to send UT to another conference.

That was a mistake by the PAC as Kings do not come knocking on your door everyday and the PAC would have landed at least TT and KSU for a nice central time zone pod.

More importantly, the incentive to take in TT, OSU and KSU would be the renewal of the B1G - PAC alliance. Such alliance was turned down last time because the PAC coaches did not want 9 conference games and an annual B1G matchup. The reason, as some believe, was not the scheduling problems USC and Stanford had with keeping Notre Dame.

Now with the continued struggles of the PAC Network and the continuing success of the BTN, the alliance would be even more attractive. Actually, because of the success of the BTN such an alliance would be way more profitable than was originally conceived. The alliance could include Bedlam and UT/TT with the PAC Network having the broadcast rights every other year. The same would be true for all other inter-conference games, all of which would be broadcast on either the BTN or the PAC Network.

Such an alliance would bring in a ton of money and would establish (save) the PAC Network. This would be the financial incentive to take in the little brothers.

Texas Tech and Kansas State do you want them in the SEC?

No

(11-04-2013 04:18 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:31 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:25 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:03 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I just cant see any power conference adding OSU if you already have OU.

OK is a small market state and OU is just not enough of a prize to give up something as insanely valuable as an additional expansion slot to give to their tag-a-long so they can make their politicians happy.

But since OU cant just leave OSU, that really scratches them off the list for expansion by the B1G and SEC because neither can afford to give a slot to OSU.

Unless the little brothers, TT, OSU, and KSU find homes in the PAC. The PAC voted down taking OU and OSU because they wanted UT, they thought those two schools would be sort of on an island, or more accurately, a peninsula, and they did not want to send UT to another conference.

That was a mistake by the PAC as Kings do not come knocking on your door everyday and the PAC would have landed at least TT and KSU for a nice central time zone pod.

More importantly, the incentive to take in TT, OSU and KSU would be the renewal of the B1G - PAC alliance. Such alliance was turned down last time because the PAC coaches did not want 9 conference games and an annual B1G matchup. The reason, as some believe, was not the scheduling problems USC and Stanford had with keeping Notre Dame.

Now with the continued struggles of the PAC Network and the continuing success of the BTN, the alliance would be even more attractive. Actually, because of the success of the BTN such an alliance would be way more profitable than was originally conceived. The alliance could include Bedlam and UT/TT with the PAC Network having the broadcast rights every other year. The same would be true for all other inter-conference games, all of which would be broadcast on either the BTN or the PAC Network.

Such an alliance would bring in a ton of money and would establish (save) the PAC Network. This would be the financial incentive to take in the little brothers.

Texas Tech and Kansas State do you want them in the SEC?

No

No.