(04-16-2013 03:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The 40 million that folks talk about with the Big Ten is total conference revenue, not just TV money. Right now, Big Ten pulls in about 16.5 million in tv money. with the other 7-8 million in other stuff like hoops units, bowl money, conference tourney money, etc. Big Ten and SEC are going to be 1 and 1a in money for sure. Your 28.5 vs 45 is truly apples vs oranges.

Also got to remember the SEC deal with CBS is now 5 years old- so only 10 years to go. Really only a 7-8 year period where the Big Ten would "dominiate" before the SEC swings back with their tier 1 games.

With the growth of the B1G network and the way these deals are structured, i don't see how the B1G doesn't end up making at least $10m - $15 million more per year than the SEC over the next decade. It already makes almost $5 million more (as of last year), B1G network revenue is growing about 20% per year, and with a new deal in 2016 that advantage will jump.

That kind of gap could lead to a B1G raid of the SEC.

Haha. Never going to happen. Who would realistically leave? Missouri, Kentucky, or Vandy maybe? No one else would even entertain the notion.

If that happens we just backfill with Florida St. or West Virginia or VT and come out even stronger.

Losing Vandy and Kentucky would cause grievous harm to the SEC, and adding FSU, WVU, and VT would not come close to making up for those losses.

(04-16-2013 03:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

love how you think Fox would just stand still and allow that to happen. I think for one, Fox would use the Big Ten to poach more from the ACC... That changes things quite a bit.

Last year, the biggest myth on these boards was that "market size" mattered a lot in determining if a team was valuable to a media network.

This year, the biggest myth is that the TV networks have any control whatsoever over whether the SEC or the B1G decides to raid another conference.

Trading Vandy and UK for VT and NCSU = a grievous loss we can't recover from...as in trading a market of 4 million for a combined market of 18 million...is somehow a net loss for the SEC?

I rarely say this to users on here but sir, you are an idiot and have no idea wth you are talking about.

If you want to spew nonsensical trolling to spark a B1G vs SEC argument, take it to the Verbal Assault board.

(04-17-2013 11:24 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Trading Vandy and UK for VT and NCSU = a grievous loss we can't recover from...as in trading a market of 4 million for a combined market of 18 million...is somehow a net loss for the SEC?

I rarely say this to users on here but sir, you are an idiot and have no idea wth you are talking about.

If you want to spew nonsensical trolling to spark a B1G vs SEC argument, take it to the Verbal Assault board.

No sense of humor today?
Have you considered that he might be being facetious?

(04-16-2013 03:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The 40 million that folks talk about with the Big Ten is total conference revenue, not just TV money. Right now, Big Ten pulls in about 16.5 million in tv money. with the other 7-8 million in other stuff like hoops units, bowl money, conference tourney money, etc. Big Ten and SEC are going to be 1 and 1a in money for sure. Your 28.5 vs 45 is truly apples vs oranges.

Also got to remember the SEC deal with CBS is now 5 years old- so only 10 years to go. Really only a 7-8 year period where the Big Ten would "dominiate" before the SEC swings back with their tier 1 games.

With the growth of the B1G network and the way these deals are structured, i don't see how the B1G doesn't end up making at least $10m - $15 million more per year than the SEC over the next decade. It already makes almost $5 million more (as of last year), B1G network revenue is growing about 20% per year, and with a new deal in 2016 that advantage will jump.

That kind of gap could lead to a B1G raid of the SEC.

Haha. Never going to happen. Who would realistically leave? Missouri, Kentucky, or Vandy maybe? No one else would even entertain the notion.

If that happens we just backfill with Florida St. or West Virginia or VT and come out even stronger.

"Who would realistically leave? Missouri, Kentucky, or Vandy maybe?"

And the answer is NO, NO, and NO.

(04-17-2013 11:24 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Trading Vandy and UK for VT and NCSU = a grievous loss we can't recover from...as in trading a market of 4 million for a combined market of 18 million...is somehow a net loss for the SEC?

I rarely say this to users on here but sir, you are an idiot and have no idea wth you are talking about.

Only Big East fans from last year talk about "markets", as markets mean next to nothing. If they meant anything, then why didn't C-USA have a huge contract when it had markets like Houston, Orlando, and Dallas? And it's shocking to hear dumb market talk coming from an SEC fan, since the SEC is the standing-refutation of the "market" concept. What kind of "market" is Baton Rouge? Nothing, and yet LSU is clearly one of the most valuable athletic schools in the country. What is the "market" of Tuscaloosa and Birmingham and Auburn? Nothing, but ditto for Alabama and Auburn. Florida is stuck in Gainesville while USF has the Tampa market, and yet Florida is worth 10x what USF is worth. Markets-schmarkets.

Markets mean nothing. What matters is national brand-name, which reflects fan and media interest in a school, and Kentucky is a much bigger brand-name than VT or NC State. Those schools play second-fiddle in their own states, whereas Kentucky, a flagship, dominates its state. Vanderbilt is an elite university that raises the SEC's academic profile and has an endowment that could buy NC State and VT 3x over.

If the SEC ever is in the position of having to add VT or NC State, that's a sure sign it is about to collapse.

Markets do matter.

But what matters more is "how much of a market can you deliver" and LOCATION has little do with ability to deliver. POPULARITY has everything to do with ability to deliver.

It's why LSU can deliver virtually the entire state of Louisiana to the SEC while Tulane struggles to deliver their neighborhood in NOLA to CUSA/BE

It's why UF can deliver virtually the entire state from Gainesville while UCF struggles for any recognition outside Orlando.

Being located in Houston has done UH zero good because their lack of popularity limits their real ability to deliver the market they are physically located in.

Conferences like the Big East and CUSA like teams in big markets not because they deliver them but because their inability to attract flagships who really DO deliver their entire state means their only option is to try and look as good as possible on paper for their network partners and pray they get lucky and one of their schools in a big city becomes the next Boise and can make some inroads for them.

Clearly you don't understand the strategy that drives the new regimes.

But you make that clear when you say VT and NCSU play second fiddle in their states and that Vandy and UK are more valuable then they are.

Losing UK basketball would hurt but the 4 million person state they bring is not as big a loss. Losing Vandy's academics would hurt but they have a non-existant fan base. Tennessee is who brings the TN market, not Vandy.

VT and NCSU as SEC schools would bring their entire states' markets into the SEC. That's 18 million more to the population footprint which means millions of more viewers and dollars for the SEC than what would be lost from losing UK and Vandy (neither of whom is leaving anyway).

Hell, if we really wanted to, we could bring in Louisville and Duke along with VT and NCSU and have replace the lost Kentucky viewers, AND have better basketball and even MORE money than the B1G at the same time.

If that all above doesn't make sense to you then you have no idea how the new realignment game is being played.

Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

Where this could be big time is how such numbers could be used by the Big Ten to entice other schools to the Big Ten INSTEAD of to the SEC.

All this talk of raiding the SEC is rubbish, just my opinion of course.

(04-17-2013 05:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Markets do matter.

But what matters more is "how much of a market can you deliver" and LOCATION has little do with ability to deliver. POPULARITY has everything to do with ability to deliver.

It's why LSU can deliver virtually the entire state of Louisiana to the SEC while Tulane struggles to deliver their neighborhood in NOLA to CUSA/BE

It's why UF can deliver virtually the entire state from Gainesville while UCF struggles for any recognition outside Orlando.

Being located in Houston has done UH zero good because their lack of popularity limits their real ability to deliver the market they are physically located in.

Conferences like the Big East and CUSA like teams in big markets not because they deliver them but because their inability to attract flagships who really DO deliver their entire state means their only option is to try and look as good as possible on paper for their network partners and pray they get lucky and one of their schools in a big city becomes the next Boise and can make some inroads for them.

***************************************************

Clearly you don't understand the strategy that drives the new regimes.

But you make that clear when you say VT and NCSU play second fiddle in their states and that Vandy and UK are more valuable then they are.

Losing UK basketball would hurt but the 4 million person state they bring is not as big a loss. Losing Vandy's academics would hurt but they have a non-existant fan base. Tennessee is who brings the TN market, not Vandy.

VT and NCSU as SEC schools would bring their entire states' markets into the SEC. That's 18 million more to the population footprint which means millions of more viewers and dollars for the SEC than what would be lost from losing UK and Vandy (neither of whom is leaving anyway).

Hell, if we really wanted to, we could bring in Louisville and Duke along with VT and NCSU and have replace the lost Kentucky viewers, AND have better basketball and even MORE money than the B1G at the same time.

If that all above doesn't make sense to you then you have no idea how the new realignment game is being played.

Never have i seen such a jekyll and hyde post! Everything you wrote above the "***********" line i inserted in your post makes perfect sense and we are in 100% accord. Everything below it is turgid nonsense.

VT and NCST would do nothing for the SEC but dilute the rest of the conference's value and establish the SEC as second-banana in two southern states. Financially and in terms of prestige, adding those schools would be a major blow to the conference, evidence that it is in decline.

Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

You do realize, and this is in no way a slight, that Texas A&M is the only school to represent singularly their state in the SEC without being considered publicly to be the flagship school of it. Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana State are all the flagship schools of their states.

There is no question that Mike Slive would rather have his alma mater Virginia and Delany's alma mater North Carolina in the SEC than to have Virginia Tech and N.C. State. I think this is the main point Quo Vadis is trying to make. You are correct that having N.C. State and Virginia Tech would permit each SEC school to earn about 3.1 million more per each by having them. But he is correct in saying that a conference that essentially possesses the flagship school of every state it occupies would be suffering a type of downgrade by accepting N.C. State and Virginia Tech instead. Not a downgrade of revenue, but of stature and prestige.

Without question I know of no one who is dissatisfied with the addition of A&M. It is a better school than many of our flagship universities and is certainly one of the two jewels of Texas a state large enough to essentially have two flagship quality schools. But there is really no comparison between the school that generated so many of our National and Confederate leaders (Virginia) and Virginia Tech when it comes to prestige or academics. And nobody could claim that it is just as good to get N.C. State as it is to get the University of North Carolina. I think your disagreement was one of distinctions with you looking at revenue and market value and with Quo Vadis looking at stature and prestige, especially when compared to the schools the SEC already boasts.

(04-17-2013 11:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 03:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

love how you think Fox would just stand still and allow that to happen. I think for one, Fox would use the Big Ten to poach more from the ACC... That changes things quite a bit.

Last year, the biggest myth on these boards was that "market size" mattered a lot in determining if a team was valuable to a media network.

This year, the biggest myth is that the TV networks have any control whatsoever over whether the SEC or the B1G decides to raid another conference.

"This year, the biggest myth is that the TV networks have any control whatsoever over whether the SEC or the B1G decides to raid another conference."

I can't wait to see if this is true. How much will an individual want to pay to see a BIG or SEC football game without network coverage in the picture. I do not see a lot of casual fans paying to see these games on BTN or SECN if the cost along with the ESPN, Fox and sports networks are included.

(04-17-2013 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

You do realize, and this is in no way a slight, that Texas A&M is the only school to represent singularly their state in the SEC without being considered publicly to be the flagship school of it. Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana State are all the flagship schools of their states.

There is no question that Mike Slive would rather have his alma mater Virginia and Delany's alma mater North Carolina in the SEC than to have Virginia Tech and N.C. State. I think this is the main point Quo Vadis is trying to make. You are correct that having N.C. State and Virginia Tech would permit each SEC school to earn about 3.1 million more per each by having them. But he is correct in saying that a conference that essentially possesses the flagship school of every state it occupies would be suffering a type of downgrade by accepting N.C. State and Virginia Tech instead. Not a downgrade of revenue, but of stature and prestige.

Without question I know of no one who is dissatisfied with the addition of A&M. It is a better school than many of our flagship universities and is certainly one of the two jewels of Texas a state large enough to essentially have two flagship quality schools. But there is really no comparison between the school that generated so many of our National and Confederate leaders (Virginia) and Virginia Tech when it comes to prestige or academics. And nobody could claim that it is just as good to get N.C. State as it is to get the University of North Carolina. I think your disagreement was one of distinctions with you looking at revenue and market value and with Quo Vadis looking at stature and prestige, especially when compared to the schools the SEC already boasts.

You do know that the state of Texas officially recognizes both A&M and UT-Austin as its 2 Flagship public schools right?

(04-17-2013 10:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

You do realize, and this is in no way a slight, that Texas A&M is the only school to represent singularly their state in the SEC without being considered publicly to be the flagship school of it. Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana State are all the flagship schools of their states.

There is no question that Mike Slive would rather have his alma mater Virginia and Delany's alma mater North Carolina in the SEC than to have Virginia Tech and N.C. State. I think this is the main point Quo Vadis is trying to make. You are correct that having N.C. State and Virginia Tech would permit each SEC school to earn about 3.1 million more per each by having them. But he is correct in saying that a conference that essentially possesses the flagship school of every state it occupies would be suffering a type of downgrade by accepting N.C. State and Virginia Tech instead. Not a downgrade of revenue, but of stature and prestige.

Without question I know of no one who is dissatisfied with the addition of A&M. It is a better school than many of our flagship universities and is certainly one of the two jewels of Texas a state large enough to essentially have two flagship quality schools. But there is really no comparison between the school that generated so many of our National and Confederate leaders (Virginia) and Virginia Tech when it comes to prestige or academics. And nobody could claim that it is just as good to get N.C. State as it is to get the University of North Carolina. I think your disagreement was one of distinctions with you looking at revenue and market value and with Quo Vadis looking at stature and prestige, especially when compared to the schools the SEC already boasts.

You do know that the state of Texas officially recognizes both A&M and UT-Austin as its 2 Flagship public schools right?

What about Tech?

(04-17-2013 10:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

You do realize, and this is in no way a slight, that Texas A&M is the only school to represent singularly their state in the SEC without being considered publicly to be the flagship school of it. Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana State are all the flagship schools of their states.

There is no question that Mike Slive would rather have his alma mater Virginia and Delany's alma mater North Carolina in the SEC than to have Virginia Tech and N.C. State. I think this is the main point Quo Vadis is trying to make. You are correct that having N.C. State and Virginia Tech would permit each SEC school to earn about 3.1 million more per each by having them. But he is correct in saying that a conference that essentially possesses the flagship school of every state it occupies would be suffering a type of downgrade by accepting N.C. State and Virginia Tech instead. Not a downgrade of revenue, but of stature and prestige.

Without question I know of no one who is dissatisfied with the addition of A&M. It is a better school than many of our flagship universities and is certainly one of the two jewels of Texas a state large enough to essentially have two flagship quality schools. But there is really no comparison between the school that generated so many of our National and Confederate leaders (Virginia) and Virginia Tech when it comes to prestige or academics. And nobody could claim that it is just as good to get N.C. State as it is to get the University of North Carolina. I think your disagreement was one of distinctions with you looking at revenue and market value and with Quo Vadis looking at stature and prestige, especially when compared to the schools the SEC already boasts.

You do know that the state of Texas officially recognizes both A&M and UT-Austin as its 2 Flagship public schools right?

I've heard that and didn't know if that was an official stance or not which is why I worded my response the way I did, but I also know that most of the country perceives it another way and many times in our world today perception unfortunately replaces truth in the public mindset. But, my point stands as the distinction is irrelevant to the point that was made. The SEC if entering the states of North Carolina and Virginia would prefer UVa and UNC to NCState and Va Tech. Both are AAU, both enhance the academics of the SEC dramatically and both are recognized as the flagship schools of their respective states. I understood and agreed with your point and his.

(04-17-2013 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 10:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

You do realize, and this is in no way a slight, that Texas A&M is the only school to represent singularly their state in the SEC without being considered publicly to be the flagship school of it. Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana State are all the flagship schools of their states.

There is no question that Mike Slive would rather have his alma mater Virginia and Delany's alma mater North Carolina in the SEC than to have Virginia Tech and N.C. State. I think this is the main point Quo Vadis is trying to make. You are correct that having N.C. State and Virginia Tech would permit each SEC school to earn about 3.1 million more per each by having them. But he is correct in saying that a conference that essentially possesses the flagship school of every state it occupies would be suffering a type of downgrade by accepting N.C. State and Virginia Tech instead. Not a downgrade of revenue, but of stature and prestige.

Without question I know of no one who is dissatisfied with the addition of A&M. It is a better school than many of our flagship universities and is certainly one of the two jewels of Texas a state large enough to essentially have two flagship quality schools. But there is really no comparison between the school that generated so many of our National and Confederate leaders (Virginia) and Virginia Tech when it comes to prestige or academics. And nobody could claim that it is just as good to get N.C. State as it is to get the University of North Carolina. I think your disagreement was one of distinctions with you looking at revenue and market value and with Quo Vadis looking at stature and prestige, especially when compared to the schools the SEC already boasts.

You do know that the state of Texas officially recognizes both A&M and UT-Austin as its 2 Flagship public schools right?

I've heard that and didn't know if that was an official stance or not which is why I worded my response the way I did, but I also know that most of the country perceives it another way and many times in our world today perception unfortunately replaces truth in the public mindset. But, my point stands as the distinction is irrelevant to the point that was made. The SEC if entering the states of North Carolina and Virginia would prefer UVa and UNC to NCState and Va Tech. Both are AAU, both enhance the academics of the SEC dramatically and both are recognized as the flagship schools of their respective states. I understood and agreed with your point and his.

They're both flagships like Indiana and Purdue and Alabama and Auburn. That doesn't mean they are viewed as "equal" flagships.

Both get access to the Permanent University Fund-Texas 2/3, A&M 1/3. They are the only schools in the state to get access to that. Their systems (UTSA, UTEP, Prairie View A&M, Texas A&M-International, etc.) get access to the Available University Fund. These are the funds created from oil properties in West Texas.

Texas has recently created an emerging research universities fund to help more state universities achieve Tier I research status. Houston and Texas Tech have qualified for access. UT-Dallas will likely be next. UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio, UT-El Paso, North Texas and Texas State are eligible for the fund when and if they meet certain standards.

So in Texas you have 1)the PUF schools-2, 2) the emerging research schools-8, 3) the Texas and Texas A&M system schools who aren't emerging research schools-a dozen or so, and then 4) everybody else-another 15-20.

I know, Im sure Auburn has the same issue with people in the rest of country beliving only UA is the Alabama Flagship. But that's OK, the state of Texas recognizes it and that's good enough for me.

As for the other part, I know given the choice a lot of people would take UVA and UNC for the prestige, but I wouldn't.

Those 2 are not SEC schools. They are wine (whine) and cheese folks who look down on Land Grant and Deep South Universities as their social inferiors. They would only join us because they HAD to, not because they wanted to.

IMO, VT and NCSU may not be as prestigous but they are SEC schools who can add just as much monetary value to the league as their snooty counterparts can while preserving the character of the leagues institutions.

But that's all hypothetical. It's not going to be the SEC picking and choosing. If we get into NC and VA it will happen because

1) UNC and UVA decide to leave the ACC for the B1G

2) VT and NCSU pick up the phone and call Slive asking for a rescue.

That's the most realistic and probable scenario.

(04-17-2013 12:54 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 03:07 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The 40 million that folks talk about with the Big Ten is total conference revenue, not just TV money. Right now, Big Ten pulls in about 16.5 million in tv money. with the other 7-8 million in other stuff like hoops units, bowl money, conference tourney money, etc. Big Ten and SEC are going to be 1 and 1a in money for sure. Your 28.5 vs 45 is truly apples vs oranges.

Also got to remember the SEC deal with CBS is now 5 years old- so only 10 years to go. Really only a 7-8 year period where the Big Ten would "dominiate" before the SEC swings back with their tier 1 games.

With the growth of the B1G network and the way these deals are structured, i don't see how the B1G doesn't end up making at least $10m - $15 million more per year than the SEC over the next decade. It already makes almost $5 million more (as of last year), B1G network revenue is growing about 20% per year, and with a new deal in 2016 that advantage will jump.

That kind of gap could lead to a B1G raid of the SEC.

Haha. Never going to happen. Who would realistically leave? Missouri, Kentucky, or Vandy maybe? No one else would even entertain the notion.

If that happens we just backfill with Florida St. or West Virginia or VT and come out even stronger.

"Who would realistically leave? Missouri, Kentucky, or Vandy maybe?"

And the answer is NO, NO, and NO.

I'm with you, I just don't see anyone wanting to leave.

(04-17-2013 05:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh...my...god, really? If a large disparity between the Big Ten and SEC becomes visible and inevitable then I don't see how it sparks a raid of the SEC by the Big Ten. Vandy? Nice school but not really where the Big Ten is moving to. Tennessee? Big time football program but other than that? Meh... Kentucky? Big time basketball program but so are Duke and UNC so that is another meh.

You seriously don't think that Kentucky and Tennessee wouldn't be huge boons to the B1G? Both are clearly more valuable than Iowa, for example.

(04-17-2013 07:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Im not going to explain it to you again or anything else since you clearly don't get it.

If you can't see how adding those 2 states to the SEC wouldn't be a huge coup, there's just no hope for you.

Since adding VT and NC State would obviously be big steps down for the SEC, the only thing i can figure is that you are an alumni of both these schools, which would explain your vast overrating of them.