JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,323
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8022
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: The B1G gets bigger
(04-15-2022 08:10 PM)ken d Wrote: (04-15-2022 04:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-15-2022 03:19 PM)Statefan Wrote: All this talk about UVa, walking away, hand in hand with UNC and Duke is predicated on the idea that the SEC or Big 10 actually want them despite their negatives. These are not football first schools. UVa never was. Duke has not been football first since 1962. And UNC stopped most recently when Butch Davis and assistant blew up in their face. Every time UNC goes "all in" on football it lasts 3-5 then there is a scandal or a failure to perform. These aren't schools built for football. Now if they were already members of the SEC or Big 10 they would not be kicked out, they would be treated no worse than Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc., etc. A nice pat on the head and a "bless your heart" regarding football.
Even the "control" that Disney wants is predicated on having something worth controlling.
Here's a football conference for you made up of P-5's:
BC, Indiana, Minn, Purdue, Rutgers, MD, South Carolina, Vandy, MSU, Kansas, Mizzou, UVa, Kentucky, and GT. These are all P-5's - some located in major metros - but how many of their current conferences would add them now for football purposes? How many years would it take for 2-3 rise above the rest and establish anything like dominance and a national reputation? Of these who would you gamble on to establish football if you were the conference desiring to make a football oriented addition?
Keep in mind something JR has repeated often - UNC touched base with the SEC when MD **** on the ACC's PSU expansion plan causing FSU to balk in public. UNC's due diligence is not the same thing as the SEC coming to Grady White Boat in Greenville NC to strike a deal. Remember what happened to Syracuse in the 2003 ACC expansion, you could get the same thing from the SEC from Kentucky, South Carolina, Auburn, and Tennessee. Just how easily do you think UK, SC, Auburn, and Tenn. would acquiesce to Duke and UNC in their basketball conference? They would have to be paid at what point does it become not worth the effort? I'm just saying.
The cheapest thing was already explored - VT and NC State to the SEC. UNC and probably Duke nixed that. Why would that have been the cheapest thing? Because first and foremost VT and NC State are the easiest to move without changing the fundamental nature of the ACC. VT and NC State can provide adequate football without an unsustainable Herculean lift. If it was the cheapest thing in the early 2010's, it's still the cheapest thing now.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State would still be suitable to the SEC in a world where the ACC remained intact. And in that world I would agree with your assessment. But that world no longer exists with the disparity in revenue being so great. ESPN wants a league of premier brands. They have it in football. Adding Duke & UNC more so than Virginia takes much of the incentive of a B1G move away. Adding Virginia completes it. Then added to Kentucky they add major content value for basketball, a sport where a breakaway will add ~2.25 x their present value.
In moving to a league of 20 or more adding hoops brands which in a conference which may well play 12 P games easily replace G5's in difficulty. Auburn, Tennessee, & Kentucky would not object. Kentucky would welcome it and the rest are still football first.
It would be the first step to achieve a defense of core identity issue the SEC first discussed in 1990. If taking those 3 halts a B1G advance South it would absolutely be an SEC move, and one which has been planned for 30 years plus. If necessary 4 more would be taken: N.C. State, Virginia Tech, F.S.U. and possibly Georgia Tech.
Wait and see.
ESPN doesn't want to lose it's ad monopoly in the SE. They will be complicit. And frankly that 24 would add tremendous balance for both money sports. 7 ACC schools and Kansas, which ESPN has held special as well.
The moves you suggest would take the SEC to 24 teams. It would also likely stop any further expansion of the B1G, and possibly lead to an 18 team Big 12 by absorbing all the ACC remnants. That would provide a P4 home to everyone in the current P5 except Notre Dame, which would continue to play as as independent.
The SEC could be organized in four 6 team divisions that might look like this:
Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt
South Carolina, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke and Virginia
Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Tennessee
Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas and Kansas
A reduction to four power conferences facilitates an 8 team playoff with four conference champions and four at large teams (which provides a path for Notre Dame). With or without a breakaway from the NCAA it would not be necessary to guarantee a G5 champion an autobid to the playoff (they could be invited at large if they are ranked high enough, which would be rare).
Where's Elmo (Kentucky)?
I think the SEC would likely organize it more this way:
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Kansas would be out if Ga Tech and N.C. State are in.
Agree with the rest.
What this setup gives this conference is 3 solid division champs in football and gives Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, and both Virginias a solid motivation to make the conference football semis. It also gives the SEC 8 divisional national quality hoops games without locking the rest out of nice runs. And this 24 provides half a dozen weaker football programs, half a dozen annual contenders and about a dozen capable of making solid runs. It's almost an ideal bell curve.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2022 08:36 PM by JRsec.)
|
|