What the heck, I've thought about it now and it seems to me the SEC needs to get into Lacrosse. So Pitt, Syracuse, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke put us into the sport. I'm sure we could put a pitch then to John's Hopkins so that we can land the Irish for everything but football. That is the thinking right? Isn't that the Big 10 master plan? Well it should work for the SEC too. Shoot even Bama, Miss State, and L.S.U. might get up a lacrosse team. Now wouldn't that stick out like a big pimple on the nose of a debutante.

(03-13-2013 12:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that ESPN is going to have some say in UConn being admitted to the ACC as the next addition (with or without the ACC losing any schools).

I think Notre Dame will have a say since I don't see anymore ACC universities leaving the conference.

undefined

(03-12-2013 09:53 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The SEC already has its syndication package available in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut via the MSG Network. Since Rutgers has gone to the B1G and West Virginia to the XII I doubt there's a way to make UConn serviceable. It'd really only be a possibility if the SEC had to go to at least 20:

Pittsburgh, WVU, Rutgers, Connecticut, Maryland
Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Kentucky

You left a zero off of 200. Your last sentence should read: :It'd really only be a possibility if the SEC had to go to at least 200:

Pittsburgh, WVU, Rutgers, Connecticut, Maryland
Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Kentucky, the rest of college football and 80 FCS teams"

(03-12-2013 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Seriously this rumor came out of a NYT piece in which the suggestion of such a move was made tongue in cheek. Then it took on legs. In the last iteration I read it had become the SEC taking six ACC teams to move to 20. The six were Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Connecticut, Virginia, Duke and North Carolina. Could a hybrid deal be in the works for the Irish? Hmm! Stay tuned.

The only scintilla of logic to it would be to parallel the proposed swing into the South via the coast by the Big 10. Such a move would garner equivalent markets for the SEC and keep them in step with Big 10 earnings. I guess one bad idea deserves another is therefore the impetus in keeping this rumor born of a misinterpretation alive.

1. Markets are irrelevant. There is no correlation between markets and TV payout. Ratings matter. That's why Penn State, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, and so on are very valuable TV properties, and UCONN, SMU, and Houston will make a combined $6 million/yr from their new TV deal.

2. Many top tier SEC schools make more than many top tier B1G schools. They just do it individually instead of through the conference, so the SEC conference payouts look artificially small, and the B1G conference payouts look artificially big. Not bundling tier three rights (i.e. via a conference network) benefits the big SEC schools at the expense of small SEC schools. Bundling rights via the BTN benefits smaller B1G schools at the expense of the bigger B1G schools. The only two reasons why the BTN has been a success are: 1) the market has been growing faster than anyone expected over the last decade, so any contracts with fixed payouts would have been undervalued and 2) conference with equal revenue distributions tend to do better, because the poorer schools have more low-hanging fruit, and conference networks distribute money equally that would otherwise not be equally distributed.

(03-12-2013 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Yup, nothing says Southern football conference like the Connecticut Huskies. And maybe Princeton can join with them to satisfy our rule that every expansion must include one new team named Tigers

Hush your mouth! It might be Memphis!

"Memphis deserves to be in the SEC"

(03-14-2013 01:48 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Seriously this rumor came out of a NYT piece in which the suggestion of such a move was made tongue in cheek. Then it took on legs. In the last iteration I read it had become the SEC taking six ACC teams to move to 20. The six were Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Connecticut, Virginia, Duke and North Carolina. Could a hybrid deal be in the works for the Irish? Hmm! Stay tuned.

The only scintilla of logic to it would be to parallel the proposed swing into the South via the coast by the Big 10. Such a move would garner equivalent markets for the SEC and keep them in step with Big 10 earnings. I guess one bad idea deserves another is therefore the impetus in keeping this rumor born of a misinterpretation alive.

1. Markets are irrelevant. There is no correlation between markets and TV payout. Ratings matter. That's why Penn State, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, and so on are very valuable TV properties, and UCONN, SMU, and Houston will make a combined $6 million/yr from their new TV deal.

2. Many top tier SEC schools make more than many top tier B1G schools. They just do it individually instead of through the conference, so the SEC conference payouts look artificially small, and the B1G conference payouts look artificially big. Not bundling tier three rights (i.e. via a conference network) benefits the big SEC schools at the expense of small SEC schools. Bundling rights via the BTN benefits smaller B1G schools at the expense of the bigger B1G schools. The only two reasons why the BTN has been a success are: 1) the market has been growing faster than anyone expected over the last decade, so any contracts with fixed payouts would have been undervalued and 2) conference with equal revenue distributions tend to do better, because the poorer schools have more low-hanging fruit, and conference networks distribute money equally that would otherwise not be equally distributed.

I don't disagree with you. I think my point is that I couldn't understand why the Big 10 would want to diminish its brand by expanding South with teams that are not really competing well against the SEC. I was also pointing out that by setting itself in direct competition with the SEC within the Southeast region the Big 10 might prompt an equally stupid move by the SEC to move into the Northeast and perhaps even the Southern tip of the Midwest to do the same. The motive for such would be to try to keep pace with market exposure. I readily admit that being in a market does not give it to you. Georgia Tech as a rumored Big 10 target is a good case in point. Yes they are in Atlanta and yes there are many Big 10 alums in that area, but the market is owned lock stock and barrel by Georgia, not Tech. I'm sure the same could be said for Cincinnati, or Pitt. Obviously the markets with a few pockets to the contrary would be owned by Ohio State and Penn State.

I'm not for any of this. I'd much rather the SEC duplicate a few markets and pick up a few teams that actually fit our profile. Expanding into North Carolina or Virginia is okay if the team is a fit. Virginia Tech could easily fit into the SEC. N.C. State might grow into it and even U.N.C. would have some major adjustments athletically outside of basketball and baseball. The question then becomes while these schools could fit us, do we fit them? That's why the teams that should obviously fit the SEC, Florida State and Clemson, should be added if they want to leave the ACC. The Oklahoma schools and the Texas schools could fit as well should they ever desire to leave the Big 12. West Virginia is another that fits well with the SEC. I know the reason these others are considered is money. But, if we have the best product and are one of the most lucrative conferences out there, why don't we just strengthen what we are and market that. Obviously it's valuable. We don't need to monopolize the nation, just our own brand.

We have a brand and a particular profile for our football teams. Those I've mentioned would have no problem fitting the brand or profile. If the SEC brand could be likened to a tough domestic SUV then why do we suddenly want to add subcompact cars to our product line? If the Big 10 is likened to a luxury sedan then why do they want to add small pickup trucks to their lineup or for that matter the BMW's of the mid-Atlantic? I think both conferences are going to lose part of their fan base by confusing their identities. We should be who we are and what we are. We are the two most successful conferences because that is what we have done for decades. We just need to get better at who we are and quit trying to be something we are not and that is a miniature NFL or national conferences.

I'm cool with 16, 18, 20, or even 24 team conferences as long as the teams that comprise them fit well together and enhance the brand. With modifications all of these configurations could play every team in a conference within 3 years. But I don't want a west coast pod, a New England pod, or a prairie pod. I just want a Southeastern Conference containing divisions that are all still primarily Southeastern. I'd be okay with taking a team or two to allow for some rivals who are just over the line. JR

(03-12-2013 09:26 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...y'all have probably seen this, but just in case...

...Boneyard - UCONN Conf. Realignment Board

...A pretty wild concept, but... not THAT much... the nnnnBE has much of the same 'footprint' the SEC has... so travel for UCONN wouldn't be too much different... more interesting when the 'crux' of the story notes the SEC may be going after NC, Duke and UVA...UCONN would be a solid 'fourth' for that quartet...

you heard it here first (thought I'd get the jump on blazr...)

(03-14-2013 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 01:48 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Seriously this rumor came out of a NYT piece in which the suggestion of such a move was made tongue in cheek. Then it took on legs. In the last iteration I read it had become the SEC taking six ACC teams to move to 20. The six were Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Connecticut, Virginia, Duke and North Carolina. Could a hybrid deal be in the works for the Irish? Hmm! Stay tuned.

The only scintilla of logic to it would be to parallel the proposed swing into the South via the coast by the Big 10. Such a move would garner equivalent markets for the SEC and keep them in step with Big 10 earnings. I guess one bad idea deserves another is therefore the impetus in keeping this rumor born of a misinterpretation alive.

1. Markets are irrelevant. There is no correlation between markets and TV payout. Ratings matter. That's why Penn State, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, and so on are very valuable TV properties, and UCONN, SMU, and Houston will make a combined $6 million/yr from their new TV deal.

2. Many top tier SEC schools make more than many top tier B1G schools. They just do it individually instead of through the conference, so the SEC conference payouts look artificially small, and the B1G conference payouts look artificially big. Not bundling tier three rights (i.e. via a conference network) benefits the big SEC schools at the expense of small SEC schools. Bundling rights via the BTN benefits smaller B1G schools at the expense of the bigger B1G schools. The only two reasons why the BTN has been a success are: 1) the market has been growing faster than anyone expected over the last decade, so any contracts with fixed payouts would have been undervalued and 2) conference with equal revenue distributions tend to do better, because the poorer schools have more low-hanging fruit, and conference networks distribute money equally that would otherwise not be equally distributed.

I don't disagree with you. I think my point is that I couldn't understand why the Big 10 would want to diminish its brand by expanding South with teams that are not really competing well against the SEC. I was also pointing out that by setting itself in direct competition with the SEC within the Southeast region the Big 10 might prompt an equally stupid move by the SEC to move into the Northeast and perhaps even the Southern tip of the Midwest to do the same. The motive for such would be to try to keep pace with market exposure. I readily admit that being in a market does not give it to you. Georgia Tech as a rumored Big 10 target is a good case in point. Yes they are in Atlanta and yes there are many Big 10 alums in that area, but the market is owned lock stock and barrel by Georgia, not Tech. I'm sure the same could be said for Cincinnati, or Pitt. Obviously the markets with a few pockets to the contrary would be owned by Ohio State and Penn State.

I'm not for any of this. I'd much rather the SEC duplicate a few markets and pick up a few teams that actually fit our profile. Expanding into North Carolina or Virginia is okay if the team is a fit. Virginia Tech could easily fit into the SEC. N.C. State might grow into it and even U.N.C. would have some major adjustments athletically outside of basketball and baseball. The question then becomes while these schools could fit us, do we fit them? That's why the teams that should obviously fit the SEC, Florida State and Clemson, should be added if they want to leave the ACC. The Oklahoma schools and the Texas schools could fit as well should they ever desire to leave the Big 12. West Virginia is another that fits well with the SEC. I know the reason these others are considered is money. But, if we have the best product and are one of the most lucrative conferences out there, why don't we just strengthen what we are and market that. Obviously it's valuable. We don't need to monopolize the nation, just our own brand.

We have a brand and a particular profile for our football teams. Those I've mentioned would have no problem fitting the brand or profile. If the SEC brand could be likened to a tough domestic SUV then why do we suddenly want to add subcompact cars to our product line? If the Big 10 is likened to a luxury sedan then why do they want to add small pickup trucks to their lineup or for that matter the BMW's of the mid-Atlantic? I think both conferences are going to lose part of their fan base by confusing their identities. We should be who we are and what we are. We are the two most successful conferences because that is what we have done for decades. We just need to get better at who we are and quit trying to be something we are not and that is a miniature NFL or national conferences.

I'm cool with 16, 18, 20, or even 24 team conferences as long as the teams that comprise them fit well together and enhance the brand. With modifications all of these configurations could play every team in a conference within 3 years. But I don't want a west coast pod, a New England pod, or a prairie pod. I just want a Southeastern Conference containing divisions that are all still primarily Southeastern. I'd be okay with taking a team or two to allow for some rivals who are just over the line. JR

I think that we both agree that adding schools that don't fit the conference's profile is beyond stupid, no matter where the school is located.

(03-14-2013 12:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 10:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 01:48 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Seriously this rumor came out of a NYT piece in which the suggestion of such a move was made tongue in cheek. Then it took on legs. In the last iteration I read it had become the SEC taking six ACC teams to move to 20. The six were Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Connecticut, Virginia, Duke and North Carolina. Could a hybrid deal be in the works for the Irish? Hmm! Stay tuned.

The only scintilla of logic to it would be to parallel the proposed swing into the South via the coast by the Big 10. Such a move would garner equivalent markets for the SEC and keep them in step with Big 10 earnings. I guess one bad idea deserves another is therefore the impetus in keeping this rumor born of a misinterpretation alive.

1. Markets are irrelevant. There is no correlation between markets and TV payout. Ratings matter. That's why Penn State, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, and so on are very valuable TV properties, and UCONN, SMU, and Houston will make a combined $6 million/yr from their new TV deal.

2. Many top tier SEC schools make more than many top tier B1G schools. They just do it individually instead of through the conference, so the SEC conference payouts look artificially small, and the B1G conference payouts look artificially big. Not bundling tier three rights (i.e. via a conference network) benefits the big SEC schools at the expense of small SEC schools. Bundling rights via the BTN benefits smaller B1G schools at the expense of the bigger B1G schools. The only two reasons why the BTN has been a success are: 1) the market has been growing faster than anyone expected over the last decade, so any contracts with fixed payouts would have been undervalued and 2) conference with equal revenue distributions tend to do better, because the poorer schools have more low-hanging fruit, and conference networks distribute money equally that would otherwise not be equally distributed.

I don't disagree with you. I think my point is that I couldn't understand why the Big 10 would want to diminish its brand by expanding South with teams that are not really competing well against the SEC. I was also pointing out that by setting itself in direct competition with the SEC within the Southeast region the Big 10 might prompt an equally stupid move by the SEC to move into the Northeast and perhaps even the Southern tip of the Midwest to do the same. The motive for such would be to try to keep pace with market exposure. I readily admit that being in a market does not give it to you. Georgia Tech as a rumored Big 10 target is a good case in point. Yes they are in Atlanta and yes there are many Big 10 alums in that area, but the market is owned lock stock and barrel by Georgia, not Tech. I'm sure the same could be said for Cincinnati, or Pitt. Obviously the markets with a few pockets to the contrary would be owned by Ohio State and Penn State.

I'm not for any of this. I'd much rather the SEC duplicate a few markets and pick up a few teams that actually fit our profile. Expanding into North Carolina or Virginia is okay if the team is a fit. Virginia Tech could easily fit into the SEC. N.C. State might grow into it and even U.N.C. would have some major adjustments athletically outside of basketball and baseball. The question then becomes while these schools could fit us, do we fit them? That's why the teams that should obviously fit the SEC, Florida State and Clemson, should be added if they want to leave the ACC. The Oklahoma schools and the Texas schools could fit as well should they ever desire to leave the Big 12. West Virginia is another that fits well with the SEC. I know the reason these others are considered is money. But, if we have the best product and are one of the most lucrative conferences out there, why don't we just strengthen what we are and market that. Obviously it's valuable. We don't need to monopolize the nation, just our own brand.

We have a brand and a particular profile for our football teams. Those I've mentioned would have no problem fitting the brand or profile. If the SEC brand could be likened to a tough domestic SUV then why do we suddenly want to add subcompact cars to our product line? If the Big 10 is likened to a luxury sedan then why do they want to add small pickup trucks to their lineup or for that matter the BMW's of the mid-Atlantic? I think both conferences are going to lose part of their fan base by confusing their identities. We should be who we are and what we are. We are the two most successful conferences because that is what we have done for decades. We just need to get better at who we are and quit trying to be something we are not and that is a miniature NFL or national conferences.

I'm cool with 16, 18, 20, or even 24 team conferences as long as the teams that comprise them fit well together and enhance the brand. With modifications all of these configurations could play every team in a conference within 3 years. But I don't want a west coast pod, a New England pod, or a prairie pod. I just want a Southeastern Conference containing divisions that are all still primarily Southeastern. I'd be okay with taking a team or two to allow for some rivals who are just over the line. JR

I think that we both agree that adding schools that don't fit the conference's profile is beyond stupid, no matter where the school is located.

Indeed!