One of the reasons the Big 10 and SEC have been so successful is that they have been peer universities, almost all bringing something to the table. Bringing "junior" members inherently creates instability as the cohesion falls apart. The Big East was a total mish-mash. The Big 12 had haves and have-nots. Pac 12 had 2 or 3 haves, a bunch in the middle and 2 or 3 have-nots.

(01-28-2023 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  One of the reasons the Big 10 and SEC have been so successful is that they have been peer universities, almost all bringing something to the table. Bringing "junior" members inherently creates instability as the cohesion falls apart. The Big East was a total mish-mash. The Big 12 had haves and have-nots. Pac 12 had 2 or 3 haves, a bunch in the middle and 2 or 3 have-nots.

Bullet, whoever is added, even at a reduced rate, will be a state flagship bringing a market, or bringing up the academics. It's merely a means of still adding those who bring something to table, but perhaps outside of athletic value alone. New markets, academic peers for Texas and Florida and others, key rivalries, or just to keep a competitor out of our region with a strong enough brand.

We aren't talking small privates, 2nd and 3rd state schools from medium or small states unless they can pay their way, thinking Clemson.

(01-28-2023 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  One of the reasons the Big 10 and SEC have been so successful is that they have been peer universities, almost all bringing something to the table. Bringing "junior" members inherently creates instability as the cohesion falls apart. The Big East was a total mish-mash. The Big 12 had haves and have-nots. Pac 12 had 2 or 3 haves, a bunch in the middle and 2 or 3 have-nots.

The Big Ten and SEC have haves and have-nots. The difference between the Big Ten and SEC and the Big 12 and Pac 12 is that the Big Ten and SEC haves don't have anywhere else to go that would bring them more money with the possible exception of each other and that's certainly debatable. For Oklahoma and Texas, it was an easy move. For UCLA and USC, geographically you can debate it but financially no way.

(01-30-2023 07:04 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  One of the reasons the Big 10 and SEC have been so successful is that they have been peer universities, almost all bringing something to the table. Bringing "junior" members inherently creates instability as the cohesion falls apart. The Big East was a total mish-mash. The Big 12 had haves and have-nots. Pac 12 had 2 or 3 haves, a bunch in the middle and 2 or 3 have-nots.

The Big Ten and SEC have haves and have-nots. The difference between the Big Ten and SEC and the Big 12 and Pac 12 is that the Big Ten and SEC haves don't have anywhere else to go that would bring them more money with the possible exception of each other and that's certainly debatable. For Oklahoma and Texas, it was an easy move. For UCLA and USC, geographically you can debate it but financially no way.

Not really. Some of their athletic programs are super-haves. But the universities were all pretty similar. In the SEC that has changed some with the growth of the states of Georgia and Florida, but the old SEC 10 other than Vandy were all pretty similar up until the 80s. Same with the Big 10 other than Northwestern. And athletically you had schools like UK and IU bring prominent basketball even if they were rarely football contenders.

(01-31-2023 01:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 07:04 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  One of the reasons the Big 10 and SEC have been so successful is that they have been peer universities, almost all bringing something to the table. Bringing "junior" members inherently creates instability as the cohesion falls apart. The Big East was a total mish-mash. The Big 12 had haves and have-nots. Pac 12 had 2 or 3 haves, a bunch in the middle and 2 or 3 have-nots.

The Big Ten and SEC have haves and have-nots. The difference between the Big Ten and SEC and the Big 12 and Pac 12 is that the Big Ten and SEC haves don't have anywhere else to go that would bring them more money with the possible exception of each other and that's certainly debatable. For Oklahoma and Texas, it was an easy move. For UCLA and USC, geographically you can debate it but financially no way.

Not really. Some of their athletic programs are super-haves. But the universities were all pretty similar. In the SEC that has changed some with the growth of the states of Georgia and Florida, but the old SEC 10 other than Vandy were all pretty similar up until the 80s. Same with the Big 10 other than Northwestern. And athletically you had schools like UK and IU bring prominent basketball even if they were rarely football contenders.

Compared to a super have, a have is a have not. Many of the Big Ten and SEC schools are at the level of ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 schools but they aren't at the level of the Big 3 or Alabama and Georgia. They deserve closer to $30 million or $40 million a year in media money than the $70 million they're getting. There's more than 3 super haves in the SEC but there are clearly not 16 or even 15. If Florida State joined the SEC, they wouldn't be the 17th best member or the 16th best either.

(01-31-2023 12:22 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 01:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 07:04 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 08:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  One of the reasons the Big 10 and SEC have been so successful is that they have been peer universities, almost all bringing something to the table. Bringing "junior" members inherently creates instability as the cohesion falls apart. The Big East was a total mish-mash. The Big 12 had haves and have-nots. Pac 12 had 2 or 3 haves, a bunch in the middle and 2 or 3 have-nots.

The Big Ten and SEC have haves and have-nots. The difference between the Big Ten and SEC and the Big 12 and Pac 12 is that the Big Ten and SEC haves don't have anywhere else to go that would bring them more money with the possible exception of each other and that's certainly debatable. For Oklahoma and Texas, it was an easy move. For UCLA and USC, geographically you can debate it but financially no way.

Not really. Some of their athletic programs are super-haves. But the universities were all pretty similar. In the SEC that has changed some with the growth of the states of Georgia and Florida, but the old SEC 10 other than Vandy were all pretty similar up until the 80s. Same with the Big 10 other than Northwestern. And athletically you had schools like UK and IU bring prominent basketball even if they were rarely football contenders.

Compared to a super have, a have is a have not. Many of the Big Ten and SEC schools are at the level of ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 schools but they aren't at the level of the Big 3 or Alabama and Georgia. They deserve closer to $30 million or $40 million a year in media money than the $70 million they're getting. There's more than 3 super haves in the SEC but there are clearly not 16 or even 15. If Florida State joined the SEC, they wouldn't be the 17th best member or the 16th best either.

No they wouldn't. They would be 7th or 8th most years.

(01-23-2023 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 12:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 and SEC should each take 4 more members and stop. Those schools are Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida St. and Miami.

The first reason is demographics. They are in the #9, #12, #13, #27 states, new to the P2, plus #3, #17 and #23, second teams.

States in the top 28 not in the P2:
9 North Carolina
12 Virginia
13 Washington
14 Arizona
16 Massachusetts
21 Colorado
27 Oregon

The only states below the top 28 in the P2 are 32 Iowa, 34 Arkansas, 35 Mississippi and 38 Nebraska. The other states below the top 28 total only 27 million in population, less than the state of Texas. Arizona, Massachusetts and Colorado total 20.1 million, still less than Florida and don't have compelling teams.

You've basically got the country covered without going into really high numbers of schools when you have issues with the logistics of conference meets, long gaps between conference titles (with 24! schools), disparate cultures and long gaps between playing other members of the conference. You won't play everyone in basketball, let alone football.

And there are only 20 schools that have truly been contenders in football going back to 1968. This expansion will pick up all of them except for Colorado who has been declining. Virginia's population gives them an edge over CU.

So you have lower population numbers, less success and fewer compelling matchups for TV if you go beyond 20.

So Bullet; which goes where?

I would assume that Washington and Oregon would move to the B1G and that Clemson and Florida State would fit into the SEC, where would you place the other 4?
For my first pass, I would place UVa and Carolina in the SEC and have Notre Dame and Miami moving to the B1G.

However, once you have crossed the threshold of 16, could you really stop at 20?
Would you really want to leave out the second school in states #12, #9 and #8 for the SEC or forego #21 for the B1G? #16 would give the B1G the entire NE corridor from Boston down to DC. While tiny Boston College is not a "fit" for the B1G, a Catholic school to mesh with the heavily Catholic mid-west in the largest population center in the country would make sense in a demographic model.
So to the 20 of the B1G add: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Boston College?
To the 20 of the SEC add: Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech and perhaps a third Texas or third Florida School?

Extra schools in a state just add marginal benefit. If its a Texas or FSU, sure. But others, not so much. And if you look at TV ratings, BC and Colorado are pretty weak. They are basically in pro sports markets. It would be almost like the SEC adding Houston. The money is just too big and the downsides of getting even bigger that it just doesn't make sense to add programs at the bottom financially.

I would probably split it as you suggested. UW, Oregon, Notre Dame and Miami to Big 10. FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA to the SEC. But UVA and Miami could go either way.

I just don't see how going above 20 is justified. They will already dominate the top of the standings and control the vast majority of markets. It doesn't hurt them to have a mezzanine ACC and Big 12 left.

If they do have a Risk conquer the world mentality, they probably go for the remaining metro markets-Cal, Stanford, Arizona St., Colorado as well as a few basketball schools-Kansas, Duke. Last couple would be doubling up with Virginia Tech/NCSU or Georgia Tech or Texas Tech. Maybe market thinking adds BC, but they would be a long shot.

I think this would be true in normal times....... these are not normal times.
If a person with no real loyalties moved to Texas, in an effort to "fit in" they would probably adopt the Longhorns as their local team of choice (if they weren't inclined to pick a pro team).
Florida and Texas are growing much faster than normal where the SEC has a very limited number of outlets.
If in a few years and the SEC can prove they can make a 16 member conference work and Texas and Florida continue to grow at a rapid rate, the most logical adds for the SEC would be additional schools in Florida and in Texas.
JR has mentioned USF, which is not as redundant (market wise) as Florida State. USF would put the SEC in a large city (Tampa) which is not their M.O., and in direct competition with an NFL team (again which is not their M.O.). UCF may prove to be more SEC like.
SEC expansion in Texas comes down to public vs private and in the SEC public will win every time. Tough decision Houston (where 8 Million people are) or Texas Tech (in the middle of nowhere) but with a large alumni base if DFW. That call would have to be made in Bristol and Birmingham.

In an interesting twist, if 16 indeed proves to be the max and the SEC needs additional schools in Florida and Texas, moving Vanderbilt and Missouri in to the 14 member ACC could allow the SEC to free up a couple of slots.
As always, ESPN has all of the viewership and market data and they would have to finance any additions or transfers to or within the SEC or ACC.

(02-02-2023 08:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 12:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 and SEC should each take 4 more members and stop. Those schools are Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida St. and Miami.

The first reason is demographics. They are in the #9, #12, #13, #27 states, new to the P2, plus #3, #17 and #23, second teams.

States in the top 28 not in the P2:
9 North Carolina
12 Virginia
13 Washington
14 Arizona
16 Massachusetts
21 Colorado
27 Oregon

The only states below the top 28 in the P2 are 32 Iowa, 34 Arkansas, 35 Mississippi and 38 Nebraska. The other states below the top 28 total only 27 million in population, less than the state of Texas. Arizona, Massachusetts and Colorado total 20.1 million, still less than Florida and don't have compelling teams.

You've basically got the country covered without going into really high numbers of schools when you have issues with the logistics of conference meets, long gaps between conference titles (with 24! schools), disparate cultures and long gaps between playing other members of the conference. You won't play everyone in basketball, let alone football.

And there are only 20 schools that have truly been contenders in football going back to 1968. This expansion will pick up all of them except for Colorado who has been declining. Virginia's population gives them an edge over CU.

So you have lower population numbers, less success and fewer compelling matchups for TV if you go beyond 20.

So Bullet; which goes where?

I would assume that Washington and Oregon would move to the B1G and that Clemson and Florida State would fit into the SEC, where would you place the other 4?
For my first pass, I would place UVa and Carolina in the SEC and have Notre Dame and Miami moving to the B1G.

However, once you have crossed the threshold of 16, could you really stop at 20?
Would you really want to leave out the second school in states #12, #9 and #8 for the SEC or forego #21 for the B1G? #16 would give the B1G the entire NE corridor from Boston down to DC. While tiny Boston College is not a "fit" for the B1G, a Catholic school to mesh with the heavily Catholic mid-west in the largest population center in the country would make sense in a demographic model.
So to the 20 of the B1G add: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Boston College?
To the 20 of the SEC add: Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech and perhaps a third Texas or third Florida School?

Extra schools in a state just add marginal benefit. If its a Texas or FSU, sure. But others, not so much. And if you look at TV ratings, BC and Colorado are pretty weak. They are basically in pro sports markets. It would be almost like the SEC adding Houston. The money is just too big and the downsides of getting even bigger that it just doesn't make sense to add programs at the bottom financially.

I would probably split it as you suggested. UW, Oregon, Notre Dame and Miami to Big 10. FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA to the SEC. But UVA and Miami could go either way.

I just don't see how going above 20 is justified. They will already dominate the top of the standings and control the vast majority of markets. It doesn't hurt them to have a mezzanine ACC and Big 12 left.

If they do have a Risk conquer the world mentality, they probably go for the remaining metro markets-Cal, Stanford, Arizona St., Colorado as well as a few basketball schools-Kansas, Duke. Last couple would be doubling up with Virginia Tech/NCSU or Georgia Tech or Texas Tech. Maybe market thinking adds BC, but they would be a long shot.

I think this would be true in normal times....... these are not normal times.
If a person with no real loyalties moved to Texas, in an effort to "fit in" they would probably adopt the Longhorns as their local team of choice (if they weren't inclined to pick a pro team).
Florida and Texas are growing much faster than normal where the SEC has a very limited number of outlets.
If in a few years and the SEC can prove they can make a 16 member conference work and Texas and Florida continue to grow at a rapid rate, the most logical adds for the SEC would be additional schools in Florida and in Texas.
JR has mentioned USF, which is not as redundant (market wise) as Florida State. USF would put the SEC in a large city (Tampa) which is not their M.O., and in direct competition with an NFL team (again which is not their M.O.). UCF may prove to be more SEC like.
SEC expansion in Texas comes down to public vs private and in the SEC public will win every time. Tough decision Houston (where 8 Million people are) or Texas Tech (in the middle of nowhere) but with a large alumni base if DFW. That call would have to be made in Bristol and Birmingham.

In an interesting twist, if 16 indeed proves to be the max and the SEC needs additional schools in Florida and Texas, moving Vanderbilt and Missouri in to the 14 member ACC could allow the SEC to free up a couple of slots.
As always, ESPN has all of the viewership and market data and they would have to finance any additions or transfers to or within the SEC or ACC.

That'd be interesting to move properties.

Florida St and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Central Florida, Missouri, and Vanderbilt to the ACC.
B1G at 16.
PAC, at 10, adds Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, San Diego St, and TCU.
XII, at 5, adds Boise St, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, and UNLV.

B1G
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

ACC
Boston College, Central Florida, Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Oregon, Oregon St, San Diego St, Stanford, TCU, Utah, Washington, Washington St

XVI
Baylor, Boise St, BYU, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UNLV, West Virginia

(02-02-2023 11:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 08:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 12:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 and SEC should each take 4 more members and stop. Those schools are Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida St. and Miami.

The first reason is demographics. They are in the #9, #12, #13, #27 states, new to the P2, plus #3, #17 and #23, second teams.

States in the top 28 not in the P2:
9 North Carolina
12 Virginia
13 Washington
14 Arizona
16 Massachusetts
21 Colorado
27 Oregon

The only states below the top 28 in the P2 are 32 Iowa, 34 Arkansas, 35 Mississippi and 38 Nebraska. The other states below the top 28 total only 27 million in population, less than the state of Texas. Arizona, Massachusetts and Colorado total 20.1 million, still less than Florida and don't have compelling teams.

You've basically got the country covered without going into really high numbers of schools when you have issues with the logistics of conference meets, long gaps between conference titles (with 24! schools), disparate cultures and long gaps between playing other members of the conference. You won't play everyone in basketball, let alone football.

And there are only 20 schools that have truly been contenders in football going back to 1968. This expansion will pick up all of them except for Colorado who has been declining. Virginia's population gives them an edge over CU.

So you have lower population numbers, less success and fewer compelling matchups for TV if you go beyond 20.

So Bullet; which goes where?

I would assume that Washington and Oregon would move to the B1G and that Clemson and Florida State would fit into the SEC, where would you place the other 4?
For my first pass, I would place UVa and Carolina in the SEC and have Notre Dame and Miami moving to the B1G.

However, once you have crossed the threshold of 16, could you really stop at 20?
Would you really want to leave out the second school in states #12, #9 and #8 for the SEC or forego #21 for the B1G? #16 would give the B1G the entire NE corridor from Boston down to DC. While tiny Boston College is not a "fit" for the B1G, a Catholic school to mesh with the heavily Catholic mid-west in the largest population center in the country would make sense in a demographic model.
So to the 20 of the B1G add: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Boston College?
To the 20 of the SEC add: Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech and perhaps a third Texas or third Florida School?

Extra schools in a state just add marginal benefit. If its a Texas or FSU, sure. But others, not so much. And if you look at TV ratings, BC and Colorado are pretty weak. They are basically in pro sports markets. It would be almost like the SEC adding Houston. The money is just too big and the downsides of getting even bigger that it just doesn't make sense to add programs at the bottom financially.

I would probably split it as you suggested. UW, Oregon, Notre Dame and Miami to Big 10. FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA to the SEC. But UVA and Miami could go either way.

I just don't see how going above 20 is justified. They will already dominate the top of the standings and control the vast majority of markets. It doesn't hurt them to have a mezzanine ACC and Big 12 left.

If they do have a Risk conquer the world mentality, they probably go for the remaining metro markets-Cal, Stanford, Arizona St., Colorado as well as a few basketball schools-Kansas, Duke. Last couple would be doubling up with Virginia Tech/NCSU or Georgia Tech or Texas Tech. Maybe market thinking adds BC, but they would be a long shot.

I think this would be true in normal times....... these are not normal times.
If a person with no real loyalties moved to Texas, in an effort to "fit in" they would probably adopt the Longhorns as their local team of choice (if they weren't inclined to pick a pro team).
Florida and Texas are growing much faster than normal where the SEC has a very limited number of outlets.
If in a few years and the SEC can prove they can make a 16 member conference work and Texas and Florida continue to grow at a rapid rate, the most logical adds for the SEC would be additional schools in Florida and in Texas.
JR has mentioned USF, which is not as redundant (market wise) as Florida State. USF would put the SEC in a large city (Tampa) which is not their M.O., and in direct competition with an NFL team (again which is not their M.O.). UCF may prove to be more SEC like.
SEC expansion in Texas comes down to public vs private and in the SEC public will win every time. Tough decision Houston (where 8 Million people are) or Texas Tech (in the middle of nowhere) but with a large alumni base if DFW. That call would have to be made in Bristol and Birmingham.

In an interesting twist, if 16 indeed proves to be the max and the SEC needs additional schools in Florida and Texas, moving Vanderbilt and Missouri in to the 14 member ACC could allow the SEC to free up a couple of slots.
As always, ESPN has all of the viewership and market data and they would have to finance any additions or transfers to or within the SEC or ACC.

That'd be interesting to move properties.

Florida St and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Central Florida, Missouri, and Vanderbilt to the ACC.
B1G at 16.
PAC, at 10, adds Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, San Diego St, and TCU.
XII, at 5, adds Boise St, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, and UNLV.

B1G
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

ACC
Boston College, Central Florida, Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Oregon, Oregon St, San Diego St, Stanford, TCU, Utah, Washington, Washington St

XVI
Baylor, Boise St, BYU, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UNLV, West Virginia

I'm not picking on you and am really directing my remarks more at X's suggestion, but if you lose Vanderbilt you lose the SEC FOIA foil. So if the SEC wanted more of a presence in DFW, or in Texas in general Baylor and TCU would be more suitable than Texas Tech, and I have nothing against the Red Raiders.

Second, the SEC has never voted out or traded a member, and won't. If Vanderbilt chose to move to the ACC because it could be more competitive, then the SEC looks for a replacement. TCU is the larger metro. Baylor is the oldest university in Texas.

And we are still looking at Florida State because it raises ad rates and gives the SEC the supermajority of viewers in Florida.

I do like USF, but because it is a rising academic star, and location, location, location. It is a game that SEC fans would travel to attend and do so in numbers. Central Florida isn't as likely. It fits much more naturally with the Atlantic composition of the ACC.

Note what is happening with the Big 12 and PAC 12 consideration for Gonzaga. That tells me the conferences already know what direction basketball will head, and it is the same as football.

This is why Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia have more legs than many might think. They are also a way for the SEC or Big 10 to increase market reach. If this were not so two cash strapped conferences like the Big 12 and PAC 12 would not be looking seriously at Gonzaga.

(02-02-2023 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 11:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 08:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 06:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  So Bullet; which goes where?

I would assume that Washington and Oregon would move to the B1G and that Clemson and Florida State would fit into the SEC, where would you place the other 4?
For my first pass, I would place UVa and Carolina in the SEC and have Notre Dame and Miami moving to the B1G.

However, once you have crossed the threshold of 16, could you really stop at 20?
Would you really want to leave out the second school in states #12, #9 and #8 for the SEC or forego #21 for the B1G? #16 would give the B1G the entire NE corridor from Boston down to DC. While tiny Boston College is not a "fit" for the B1G, a Catholic school to mesh with the heavily Catholic mid-west in the largest population center in the country would make sense in a demographic model.
So to the 20 of the B1G add: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Boston College?
To the 20 of the SEC add: Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech and perhaps a third Texas or third Florida School?

Extra schools in a state just add marginal benefit. If its a Texas or FSU, sure. But others, not so much. And if you look at TV ratings, BC and Colorado are pretty weak. They are basically in pro sports markets. It would be almost like the SEC adding Houston. The money is just too big and the downsides of getting even bigger that it just doesn't make sense to add programs at the bottom financially.

I would probably split it as you suggested. UW, Oregon, Notre Dame and Miami to Big 10. FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA to the SEC. But UVA and Miami could go either way.

I just don't see how going above 20 is justified. They will already dominate the top of the standings and control the vast majority of markets. It doesn't hurt them to have a mezzanine ACC and Big 12 left.

If they do have a Risk conquer the world mentality, they probably go for the remaining metro markets-Cal, Stanford, Arizona St., Colorado as well as a few basketball schools-Kansas, Duke. Last couple would be doubling up with Virginia Tech/NCSU or Georgia Tech or Texas Tech. Maybe market thinking adds BC, but they would be a long shot.

I think this would be true in normal times....... these are not normal times.
If a person with no real loyalties moved to Texas, in an effort to "fit in" they would probably adopt the Longhorns as their local team of choice (if they weren't inclined to pick a pro team).
Florida and Texas are growing much faster than normal where the SEC has a very limited number of outlets.
If in a few years and the SEC can prove they can make a 16 member conference work and Texas and Florida continue to grow at a rapid rate, the most logical adds for the SEC would be additional schools in Florida and in Texas.
JR has mentioned USF, which is not as redundant (market wise) as Florida State. USF would put the SEC in a large city (Tampa) which is not their M.O., and in direct competition with an NFL team (again which is not their M.O.). UCF may prove to be more SEC like.
SEC expansion in Texas comes down to public vs private and in the SEC public will win every time. Tough decision Houston (where 8 Million people are) or Texas Tech (in the middle of nowhere) but with a large alumni base if DFW. That call would have to be made in Bristol and Birmingham.

In an interesting twist, if 16 indeed proves to be the max and the SEC needs additional schools in Florida and Texas, moving Vanderbilt and Missouri in to the 14 member ACC could allow the SEC to free up a couple of slots.
As always, ESPN has all of the viewership and market data and they would have to finance any additions or transfers to or within the SEC or ACC.

That'd be interesting to move properties.

Florida St and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Central Florida, Missouri, and Vanderbilt to the ACC.
B1G at 16.
PAC, at 10, adds Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, San Diego St, and TCU.
XII, at 5, adds Boise St, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, and UNLV.

B1G
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

ACC
Boston College, Central Florida, Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Oregon, Oregon St, San Diego St, Stanford, TCU, Utah, Washington, Washington St

XVI
Baylor, Boise St, BYU, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UNLV, West Virginia

I'm not picking on you and am really directing my remarks more at X's suggestion, but if you lose Vanderbilt you lose the SEC FOIA foil. So if the SEC wanted more of a presence in DFW, or in Texas in general Baylor and TCU would be more suitable than Texas Tech, and I have nothing against the Red Raiders.

Second, the SEC has never voted out or traded a member, and won't. If Vanderbilt chose to move to the ACC because it could be more competitive, then the SEC looks for a replacement. TCU is the larger metro. Baylor is the oldest university in Texas.

And we are still looking at Florida State because it raises ad rates and gives the SEC the supermajority of viewers in Florida.

I do like USF, but because it is a rising academic star, and location, location, location. It is a game that SEC fans would travel to attend and do so in numbers. Central Florida isn't as likely. It fits much more naturally with the Atlantic composition of the ACC.

Note what is happening with the Big 12 and PAC 12 consideration for Gonzaga. That tells me the conferences already know what direction basketball will head, and it is the same as football.

This is why Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia have more legs than many might think. They are also a way for the SEC or Big 10 to increase market reach. If this were not so two cash strapped conferences like the Big 12 and PAC 12 would not be looking seriously at Gonzaga.

If Vanderbilt transfers, then you are correct in that having a private school is helpful to keep things out of the public eye (until a Maryland squeals and tells the world what Wake Forest is up to).
And while I have always liked Baylor for the SEC, TCU (location, location, location) would put the SEC on the outskirts of Dallas in a more SEC like setting while giving the SEC back a private school to hide behind.
If nothing happens for a few years, I would imagine that USF will continue to draw more and more of the SEC's attention. There is a lot of market overlap with Florida State and the SEC....just sayin' and there will come a time when the SEC absolutely will need another Florida school, and actually could use that third in Texas too.
Just spitballing, JR just trying to find a solution to untie the Gordian Knot without having to pull out my sword.

(02-02-2023 01:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 11:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 08:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  Extra schools in a state just add marginal benefit. If its a Texas or FSU, sure. But others, not so much. And if you look at TV ratings, BC and Colorado are pretty weak. They are basically in pro sports markets. It would be almost like the SEC adding Houston. The money is just too big and the downsides of getting even bigger that it just doesn't make sense to add programs at the bottom financially.

I would probably split it as you suggested. UW, Oregon, Notre Dame and Miami to Big 10. FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA to the SEC. But UVA and Miami could go either way.

I just don't see how going above 20 is justified. They will already dominate the top of the standings and control the vast majority of markets. It doesn't hurt them to have a mezzanine ACC and Big 12 left.

If they do have a Risk conquer the world mentality, they probably go for the remaining metro markets-Cal, Stanford, Arizona St., Colorado as well as a few basketball schools-Kansas, Duke. Last couple would be doubling up with Virginia Tech/NCSU or Georgia Tech or Texas Tech. Maybe market thinking adds BC, but they would be a long shot.

I think this would be true in normal times....... these are not normal times.
If a person with no real loyalties moved to Texas, in an effort to "fit in" they would probably adopt the Longhorns as their local team of choice (if they weren't inclined to pick a pro team).
Florida and Texas are growing much faster than normal where the SEC has a very limited number of outlets.
If in a few years and the SEC can prove they can make a 16 member conference work and Texas and Florida continue to grow at a rapid rate, the most logical adds for the SEC would be additional schools in Florida and in Texas.
JR has mentioned USF, which is not as redundant (market wise) as Florida State. USF would put the SEC in a large city (Tampa) which is not their M.O., and in direct competition with an NFL team (again which is not their M.O.). UCF may prove to be more SEC like.
SEC expansion in Texas comes down to public vs private and in the SEC public will win every time. Tough decision Houston (where 8 Million people are) or Texas Tech (in the middle of nowhere) but with a large alumni base if DFW. That call would have to be made in Bristol and Birmingham.

In an interesting twist, if 16 indeed proves to be the max and the SEC needs additional schools in Florida and Texas, moving Vanderbilt and Missouri in to the 14 member ACC could allow the SEC to free up a couple of slots.
As always, ESPN has all of the viewership and market data and they would have to finance any additions or transfers to or within the SEC or ACC.

That'd be interesting to move properties.

Florida St and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Central Florida, Missouri, and Vanderbilt to the ACC.
B1G at 16.
PAC, at 10, adds Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, San Diego St, and TCU.
XII, at 5, adds Boise St, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, and UNLV.

B1G
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

ACC
Boston College, Central Florida, Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Oregon, Oregon St, San Diego St, Stanford, TCU, Utah, Washington, Washington St

XVI
Baylor, Boise St, BYU, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UNLV, West Virginia

I'm not picking on you and am really directing my remarks more at X's suggestion, but if you lose Vanderbilt you lose the SEC FOIA foil. So if the SEC wanted more of a presence in DFW, or in Texas in general Baylor and TCU would be more suitable than Texas Tech, and I have nothing against the Red Raiders.

Second, the SEC has never voted out or traded a member, and won't. If Vanderbilt chose to move to the ACC because it could be more competitive, then the SEC looks for a replacement. TCU is the larger metro. Baylor is the oldest university in Texas.

And we are still looking at Florida State because it raises ad rates and gives the SEC the supermajority of viewers in Florida.

I do like USF, but because it is a rising academic star, and location, location, location. It is a game that SEC fans would travel to attend and do so in numbers. Central Florida isn't as likely. It fits much more naturally with the Atlantic composition of the ACC.

Note what is happening with the Big 12 and PAC 12 consideration for Gonzaga. That tells me the conferences already know what direction basketball will head, and it is the same as football.

This is why Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia have more legs than many might think. They are also a way for the SEC or Big 10 to increase market reach. If this were not so two cash strapped conferences like the Big 12 and PAC 12 would not be looking seriously at Gonzaga.

If Vanderbilt transfers, then you are correct in that having a private school is helpful to keep things out of the public eye (until a Maryland squeals and tells the world what Wake Forest is up to).
And while I have always liked Baylor for the SEC, TCU (location, location, location) would put the SEC on the outskirts of Dallas in a more SEC like setting while giving the SEC back a private school to hide behind.
If nothing happens for a few years, I would imagine that USF will continue to draw more and more of the SEC's attention. There is a lot of market overlap with Florida State and the SEC....just sayin' and there will come a time when the SEC absolutely will need another Florida school, and actually could use that third in Texas too.
Just spitballing, JR just trying to find a solution to untie the Gordian Knot without having to pull out my sword.

You loosen the knot by expanding the reach of the rope sufficiently to have the slack to accommodate the untangling. Meaning, we become one league with unequal revenue sharing and slowly elevate some of the schools through brand association and collective enhancement of valuations. 30 schools which would not need to add UCF or USF or TCU, but which could add Kansas and maybe a Texas Tech or even Baylor.

(02-02-2023 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 01:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 11:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 08:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  I think this would be true in normal times....... these are not normal times.
If a person with no real loyalties moved to Texas, in an effort to "fit in" they would probably adopt the Longhorns as their local team of choice (if they weren't inclined to pick a pro team).
Florida and Texas are growing much faster than normal where the SEC has a very limited number of outlets.
If in a few years and the SEC can prove they can make a 16 member conference work and Texas and Florida continue to grow at a rapid rate, the most logical adds for the SEC would be additional schools in Florida and in Texas.
JR has mentioned USF, which is not as redundant (market wise) as Florida State. USF would put the SEC in a large city (Tampa) which is not their M.O., and in direct competition with an NFL team (again which is not their M.O.). UCF may prove to be more SEC like.
SEC expansion in Texas comes down to public vs private and in the SEC public will win every time. Tough decision Houston (where 8 Million people are) or Texas Tech (in the middle of nowhere) but with a large alumni base if DFW. That call would have to be made in Bristol and Birmingham.

In an interesting twist, if 16 indeed proves to be the max and the SEC needs additional schools in Florida and Texas, moving Vanderbilt and Missouri in to the 14 member ACC could allow the SEC to free up a couple of slots.
As always, ESPN has all of the viewership and market data and they would have to finance any additions or transfers to or within the SEC or ACC.

That'd be interesting to move properties.

Florida St and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Central Florida, Missouri, and Vanderbilt to the ACC.
B1G at 16.
PAC, at 10, adds Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, San Diego St, and TCU.
XII, at 5, adds Boise St, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, and UNLV.

B1G
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Wisconsin

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

ACC
Boston College, Central Florida, Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Missouri, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Oregon, Oregon St, San Diego St, Stanford, TCU, Utah, Washington, Washington St

XVI
Baylor, Boise St, BYU, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Fresno St, Gonzaga^, Hawaii*, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UNLV, West Virginia

I'm not picking on you and am really directing my remarks more at X's suggestion, but if you lose Vanderbilt you lose the SEC FOIA foil. So if the SEC wanted more of a presence in DFW, or in Texas in general Baylor and TCU would be more suitable than Texas Tech, and I have nothing against the Red Raiders.

Second, the SEC has never voted out or traded a member, and won't. If Vanderbilt chose to move to the ACC because it could be more competitive, then the SEC looks for a replacement. TCU is the larger metro. Baylor is the oldest university in Texas.

And we are still looking at Florida State because it raises ad rates and gives the SEC the supermajority of viewers in Florida.

I do like USF, but because it is a rising academic star, and location, location, location. It is a game that SEC fans would travel to attend and do so in numbers. Central Florida isn't as likely. It fits much more naturally with the Atlantic composition of the ACC.

Note what is happening with the Big 12 and PAC 12 consideration for Gonzaga. That tells me the conferences already know what direction basketball will head, and it is the same as football.

This is why Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia have more legs than many might think. They are also a way for the SEC or Big 10 to increase market reach. If this were not so two cash strapped conferences like the Big 12 and PAC 12 would not be looking seriously at Gonzaga.

If Vanderbilt transfers, then you are correct in that having a private school is helpful to keep things out of the public eye (until a Maryland squeals and tells the world what Wake Forest is up to).
And while I have always liked Baylor for the SEC, TCU (location, location, location) would put the SEC on the outskirts of Dallas in a more SEC like setting while giving the SEC back a private school to hide behind.
If nothing happens for a few years, I would imagine that USF will continue to draw more and more of the SEC's attention. There is a lot of market overlap with Florida State and the SEC....just sayin' and there will come a time when the SEC absolutely will need another Florida school, and actually could use that third in Texas too.
Just spitballing, JR just trying to find a solution to untie the Gordian Knot without having to pull out my sword.

You loosen the knot by expanding the reach of the rope sufficiently to have the slack to accommodate the untangling. Meaning, we become one league with unequal revenue sharing and slowly elevate some of the schools through brand association and collective enhancement of valuations. 30 schools which would not need to add UCF or USF or TCU, but which could add Kansas and maybe a Texas Tech or even Baylor.

JR we have already been given a template by the Big 12 of how any merger of the SEC and ACC would have to work.
1) First both conferences will have to adopt unequal revenue distribution
2) A rate will have to be negotiated for the ACC and for the SEC
3) A consolidated headquarters location will have to be determined

ESPN has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to finance the four new Big 12 schools out of their pocket, which means that in a merged SEC/ACC the elevation funds to increase the ACC school's media income bump will have to come at the expense of all of the SEC schools. ESPN is in no financial condition to foot the bill themselves and has already demonstrated they aren't willing to pay additional funds over and above their existing contracts.
By consolidating the headquarters the ACC should be able to save at least half of their administrative fees. That should save about $20 Million.
In order to make this move, it appears as if each ACC school would need a bump of at least $10 Million per school, maybe $15 Million (we'll compromise at $12 Million each). That's a funding need of $168 Million per year. Subtracting the $20 Million savings in administrative expenses leaves a balance of $148 Million, and expense that would have to be paid by each and every SEC school ($9.25 Million per school).
The way this deficit would be recovered is through network revenue (getting a uniform rate for both networks in every state with a blended scheduling).
The question then becomes is the SEC willing to make an investment in the ACC in the hopes of greater long term returns?
Gosh, I hope so............the ACC schools need the money.