(03-01-2018 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC increased in economic clout primarily because of massive population increases in Florida and Georgia. Florida today has more than 4 times as many residents as it did in 1960.

That's true. And by 1992 that trend was well established. It is why the SEC was horribly shortsighted with regard to accepting Bowden's first overtures so indifferently in the early 80's. By '87 or '88 when he was pushing the SEC again we were still dismissive. The 2nd biggest realignment mistake IMO was the failure of the SEC to lock down Florida by adding Florida State long before the ACC nabbed them. And the opportunities were there. The 3rd biggest mistake was the Big 10 failing to add Missouri. It's not that Missouri was a terrific catch on their own, but because Missouri would have really opened the door toward Oklahoma and Texas and was a more profitable path for them than Kansas.

And the bad thing about history is that it can repeat itself.

I didn't know about FSU approaching us early on, but it makes sense. With that said, we should be very careful about properties in 2018 that may not look like everything we want them to be because 10 and 20 years pass pretty quickly.

I've never been against jumping on schools that look like they could make a splash within the next generation and that is for this very purpose.

(03-01-2018 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

The SEC should definitely have added Florida State before the ACC got around to it.

The Pac-10 should have offered UT a better-than-equal revenue distribution, and not just "Come join us and bring whichever buddies you want." The big picture is that everyone makes more money that way, even if Wazzu is making less than USC and UT. Also, it would have been easier to go after UT before the SWC started breaking up and some politicians decided to use the Longhorns as a liferaft for their own alma maters.

The Big Ten went in the wrong direction with Nebraska. Not enough people there, and not nearly the same football program they had in 1980. They had the right idea with Maryland, and if they had been more aggressive earlier (around the time they added Penn State), they could have gone after Maryland at that time among others. That was the time to try and get UVA and UNC.

I agree that at the time Penn St was added the Big 10 should have made an all out push.

When Kramer initially looked at Clemson, F.S.U., Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma in '92 he had the right idea, but had it 3 to 4 years too late. I'm not saying he would have been successful even earlier, but the idea was to get everything you want at once. We did consider jumping straight from 10 to 16 if we could get the right mix.

IMO, this adding 1 or 2 at the time and waiting 5 years has been a rotten strategy. It allows for too much resistance to build to an idea. If you make a pitch then you need to close the deal while everyone's interested.

At 10 the Big 10 should have made a push for Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Penn State. That would have been the market and academic bonanza. Then the Old Big East and SEC would have picked up the leftovers worth having.

(03-01-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

The SEC should definitely have added Florida State before the ACC got around to it.

The Pac-10 should have offered UT a better-than-equal revenue distribution, and not just "Come join us and bring whichever buddies you want." The big picture is that everyone makes more money that way, even if Wazzu is making less than USC and UT. Also, it would have been easier to go after UT before the SWC started breaking up and some politicians decided to use the Longhorns as a liferaft for their own alma maters.

The Big Ten went in the wrong direction with Nebraska. Not enough people there, and not nearly the same football program they had in 1980. They had the right idea with Maryland, and if they had been more aggressive earlier (around the time they added Penn State), they could have gone after Maryland at that time among others. That was the time to try and get UVA and UNC.

I agree that at the time Penn St was added the Big 10 should have made an all out push.

When Kramer initially looked at Clemson, F.S.U., Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma in '92 he had the right idea, but had it 3 to 4 years too late. I'm not saying he would have been successful even earlier, but the idea was to get everything you want at once. We did consider jumping straight from 10 to 16 if we could get the right mix.

IMO, this adding 1 or 2 at the time and waiting 5 years has been a rotten strategy. It allows for too much resistance to build to an idea. If you make a pitch then you need to close the deal while everyone's interested.

At 10 the Big 10 should have made a push for Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Penn State. That would have been the market and academic bonanza. Then the Old Big East and SEC would have picked up the leftovers worth having.

JR, the Big Ten could have pushed for ND all it wanted in 1992, but the answer still would have been "No". It was "No" seven years later. The Big Ten missed the ND boat in 1922, not 1992.

(It would have been "No" for the New Big East too, as you listed above).

(03-01-2018 04:36 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

The SEC should definitely have added Florida State before the ACC got around to it.

The Pac-10 should have offered UT a better-than-equal revenue distribution, and not just "Come join us and bring whichever buddies you want." The big picture is that everyone makes more money that way, even if Wazzu is making less than USC and UT. Also, it would have been easier to go after UT before the SWC started breaking up and some politicians decided to use the Longhorns as a liferaft for their own alma maters.

The Big Ten went in the wrong direction with Nebraska. Not enough people there, and not nearly the same football program they had in 1980. They had the right idea with Maryland, and if they had been more aggressive earlier (around the time they added Penn State), they could have gone after Maryland at that time among others. That was the time to try and get UVA and UNC.

I agree that at the time Penn St was added the Big 10 should have made an all out push.

When Kramer initially looked at Clemson, F.S.U., Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma in '92 he had the right idea, but had it 3 to 4 years too late. I'm not saying he would have been successful even earlier, but the idea was to get everything you want at once. We did consider jumping straight from 10 to 16 if we could get the right mix.

IMO, this adding 1 or 2 at the time and waiting 5 years has been a rotten strategy. It allows for too much resistance to build to an idea. If you make a pitch then you need to close the deal while everyone's interested.

At 10 the Big 10 should have made a push for Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Penn State. That would have been the market and academic bonanza. Then the Old Big East and SEC would have picked up the leftovers worth having.

JR, the Big Ten could have pushed for ND all it wanted in 1992, but the answer still would have been "No". It was "No" seven years later. The Big Ten missed the ND boat in 1922, not 1992.

(It would have been "No" for the New Big East too, as you listed above).

I think we all know that Terry D. The thing is it hasn't stopped overtures has it?

(02-28-2018 09:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 09:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 06:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not saying that this has the remotest of possibilities of ever happening but I wonder where the money and balance of power would be if let's say Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky were to flip from the SEC to the ACC?

It might balance out a bit more if in that process the SEC shifted farther West and into Texas completely. I don't think Kentucky and Georgia would be a go. Kentucky likes being the SEC's basketball power. Georgia just plain fits in all regards. Florida thought about it in the 70's and Vanderbilt has mulled it over before. South Carolina has some animus toward Chapel Hill so there's that too. If Gainesville went ACC and Florida State and Miami flipped SEC it might work out well without having to have the SEC expand more to the West. Florida and Vanderbilt to the ACC and Miami and F.S.U. to the SEC. Miami could navigate playing around the Gulf fairly well and Florida State is very close to Auburn and relatively close to Athens.

Florida is probably a little more culturally aligned with North Carolina and Virginia with regard to academics and kinds of sports. Florida State is more aligned with the SEC in sports culture and geography. Vandy would blend well and compete better in the ACC and Miami will be an outlier anywhere they go, but their travel would be greatly reduced playing in the SEC.

But no, nothing like this is going to happen. There's way too much risk to the revenue of those departing the SEC to be considered. Plus if the SEC does pick up an Oklahoma or Texas it just makes Florida that much more comfortable where they are. For Vandy the concept would be do we want to be a punching bag for 28 million a year or a punching bag for 41 million a year?

I guess that is why South Carolina pursued the Tar Heels and arranged Football and baseball series with Carolina in Charlotte (with at least two more football, games in the series..'19 and '23 and annual baseball contests).

Nothing draws like hatred.

Another good reason for South Carolina to re-join.

(03-01-2018 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC increased in economic clout primarily because of massive population increases in Florida and Georgia. Florida today has more than 4 times as many residents as it did in 1960.

That's true. And by 1992 that trend was well established. It is why the SEC was horribly shortsighted with regard to accepting Bowden's first overtures so indifferently in the early 80's. By '87 or '88 when he was pushing the SEC again we were still dismissive. The 2nd biggest realignment mistake IMO was the failure of the SEC to lock down Florida by adding Florida State long before the ACC nabbed them. And the opportunities were there. The 3rd biggest mistake was the Big 10 failing to add Missouri. It's not that Missouri was a terrific catch on their own, but because Missouri would have really opened the door toward Oklahoma and Texas and was a more profitable path for them than Kansas.

When we talk about realignment we criticize additions. All of the additions are relatively understandable by looking at the context at the time. The truly inexplicable realignment mistakes were the failures to make additions.

The #1 realignment mistake belongs to the PAC who should have added Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado before the little brothers got involved and even the second go around with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would have been quite profitable.

When people do their what if threads the really interesting one should be, what if the SEC had taken Florida State in the late 80's, what if the Big 10 had taken Nebraska along with Kansas and Missouri to go to 14, and what if the PAC had taken at least Texa-homa?

If the SEC had taken Florida State in the late 80's there is a good chance that it would have kept the ACC's value level low enough to have been more of an enticement later on. It may have kept their value low enough for the Big East to have poached ACC schools like Maryland and maybe even convinced Penn State to join up as well. And if it had done that a healthier Big East may have been able to keep the Big 10 at bay which would have green-lighted the taking of Missouri and Kansas with Nebraska thereby killing the Big 12 and sending Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and either Texas Tech or A&M looking. Maybe the SEC still gets A&M, but most likely the SEC would have gone after North Carolina and Virginia and taken Duke to get UNC and added them to F.S.U.. If this had been in the works prior to '91 then Clemson probably takes South Carolina's place in the SEC.

So the SEC might have looked like this if F.S.U. had joined in the late 80's:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State


The Old Big East Football Might have looked like this after expansion:

Boston College, Connecticut, Penn State, Maryland

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Miami, South Carolina

Which would still have been a dynamite conference for all sports.


The Big 10 might have looked like this:

Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Nebraska

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

The PAC might still have had some nice additions:

Colorado, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Utah to go to 14.

T.C.U. would have been there for DFW if they had wanted that penetration and it would still have left them 1 slot for the best of rest in the West.

Things might have looked quite differently.

If Florida State had joined the SEC in the late 80's the ACC might have added Penn State before the Big 10 got 'em and perhaps Syracuse, too!

BTW in the late 80's the ACC's media payout was the highest of all major conferences and we had already formed out own network and were broadcasting football and basketball on a regional basis.

(03-01-2018 07:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC increased in economic clout primarily because of massive population increases in Florida and Georgia. Florida today has more than 4 times as many residents as it did in 1960.

That's true. And by 1992 that trend was well established. It is why the SEC was horribly shortsighted with regard to accepting Bowden's first overtures so indifferently in the early 80's. By '87 or '88 when he was pushing the SEC again we were still dismissive. The 2nd biggest realignment mistake IMO was the failure of the SEC to lock down Florida by adding Florida State long before the ACC nabbed them. And the opportunities were there. The 3rd biggest mistake was the Big 10 failing to add Missouri. It's not that Missouri was a terrific catch on their own, but because Missouri would have really opened the door toward Oklahoma and Texas and was a more profitable path for them than Kansas.

When we talk about realignment we criticize additions. All of the additions are relatively understandable by looking at the context at the time. The truly inexplicable realignment mistakes were the failures to make additions.

The #1 realignment mistake belongs to the PAC who should have added Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado before the little brothers got involved and even the second go around with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would have been quite profitable.

When people do their what if threads the really interesting one should be, what if the SEC had taken Florida State in the late 80's, what if the Big 10 had taken Nebraska along with Kansas and Missouri to go to 14, and what if the PAC had taken at least Texa-homa?

If the SEC had taken Florida State in the late 80's there is a good chance that it would have kept the ACC's value level low enough to have been more of an enticement later on. It may have kept their value low enough for the Big East to have poached ACC schools like Maryland and maybe even convinced Penn State to join up as well. And if it had done that a healthier Big East may have been able to keep the Big 10 at bay which would have green-lighted the taking of Missouri and Kansas with Nebraska thereby killing the Big 12 and sending Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and either Texas Tech or A&M looking. Maybe the SEC still gets A&M, but most likely the SEC would have gone after North Carolina and Virginia and taken Duke to get UNC and added them to F.S.U.. If this had been in the works prior to '91 then Clemson probably takes South Carolina's place in the SEC.

So the SEC might have looked like this if F.S.U. had joined in the late 80's:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State


The Old Big East Football Might have looked like this after expansion:

Boston College, Connecticut, Penn State, Maryland

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Miami, South Carolina

Which would still have been a dynamite conference for all sports.


The Big 10 might have looked like this:

Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Nebraska

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

The PAC might still have had some nice additions:

Colorado, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Utah to go to 14.

T.C.U. would have been there for DFW if they had wanted that penetration and it would still have left them 1 slot for the best of rest in the West.

Things might have looked quite differently.

If Florida State had joined the SEC in the late 80's the ACC might have added Penn State before the Big 10 got 'em and perhaps Syracuse, too!

BTW in the late 80's the ACC's media payout was the highest of all major conferences and we had already formed out own network and were broadcasting football and basketball on a regional basis.

That's true, but you hardly had football chops back then. Clemson had faded from the Danny Ford years, but Virginia was a lot better than they are now.

(03-01-2018 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 07:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC increased in economic clout primarily because of massive population increases in Florida and Georgia. Florida today has more than 4 times as many residents as it did in 1960.

That's true. And by 1992 that trend was well established. It is why the SEC was horribly shortsighted with regard to accepting Bowden's first overtures so indifferently in the early 80's. By '87 or '88 when he was pushing the SEC again we were still dismissive. The 2nd biggest realignment mistake IMO was the failure of the SEC to lock down Florida by adding Florida State long before the ACC nabbed them. And the opportunities were there. The 3rd biggest mistake was the Big 10 failing to add Missouri. It's not that Missouri was a terrific catch on their own, but because Missouri would have really opened the door toward Oklahoma and Texas and was a more profitable path for them than Kansas.

When we talk about realignment we criticize additions. All of the additions are relatively understandable by looking at the context at the time. The truly inexplicable realignment mistakes were the failures to make additions.

The #1 realignment mistake belongs to the PAC who should have added Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado before the little brothers got involved and even the second go around with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would have been quite profitable.

When people do their what if threads the really interesting one should be, what if the SEC had taken Florida State in the late 80's, what if the Big 10 had taken Nebraska along with Kansas and Missouri to go to 14, and what if the PAC had taken at least Texa-homa?

If the SEC had taken Florida State in the late 80's there is a good chance that it would have kept the ACC's value level low enough to have been more of an enticement later on. It may have kept their value low enough for the Big East to have poached ACC schools like Maryland and maybe even convinced Penn State to join up as well. And if it had done that a healthier Big East may have been able to keep the Big 10 at bay which would have green-lighted the taking of Missouri and Kansas with Nebraska thereby killing the Big 12 and sending Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and either Texas Tech or A&M looking. Maybe the SEC still gets A&M, but most likely the SEC would have gone after North Carolina and Virginia and taken Duke to get UNC and added them to F.S.U.. If this had been in the works prior to '91 then Clemson probably takes South Carolina's place in the SEC.

So the SEC might have looked like this if F.S.U. had joined in the late 80's:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State


The Old Big East Football Might have looked like this after expansion:

Boston College, Connecticut, Penn State, Maryland

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Miami, South Carolina

Which would still have been a dynamite conference for all sports.


The Big 10 might have looked like this:

Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Nebraska

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

The PAC might still have had some nice additions:

Colorado, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Utah to go to 14.

T.C.U. would have been there for DFW if they had wanted that penetration and it would still have left them 1 slot for the best of rest in the West.

Things might have looked quite differently.

If Florida State had joined the SEC in the late 80's the ACC might have added Penn State before the Big 10 got 'em and perhaps Syracuse, too!

BTW in the late 80's the ACC's media payout was the highest of all major conferences and we had already formed out own network and were broadcasting football and basketball on a regional basis.

That's true, but you hardly had football chops back then. Clemson had faded from the Danny Ford years, but Virginia was a lot better than they are now.

True, but we were competitive amongst ourselves and that is before we knew conferences we going beyond regional.

(03-01-2018 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:36 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

The SEC should definitely have added Florida State before the ACC got around to it.

The Pac-10 should have offered UT a better-than-equal revenue distribution, and not just "Come join us and bring whichever buddies you want." The big picture is that everyone makes more money that way, even if Wazzu is making less than USC and UT. Also, it would have been easier to go after UT before the SWC started breaking up and some politicians decided to use the Longhorns as a liferaft for their own alma maters.

The Big Ten went in the wrong direction with Nebraska. Not enough people there, and not nearly the same football program they had in 1980. They had the right idea with Maryland, and if they had been more aggressive earlier (around the time they added Penn State), they could have gone after Maryland at that time among others. That was the time to try and get UVA and UNC.

I agree that at the time Penn St was added the Big 10 should have made an all out push.

When Kramer initially looked at Clemson, F.S.U., Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma in '92 he had the right idea, but had it 3 to 4 years too late. I'm not saying he would have been successful even earlier, but the idea was to get everything you want at once. We did consider jumping straight from 10 to 16 if we could get the right mix.

IMO, this adding 1 or 2 at the time and waiting 5 years has been a rotten strategy. It allows for too much resistance to build to an idea. If you make a pitch then you need to close the deal while everyone's interested.

At 10 the Big 10 should have made a push for Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Penn State. That would have been the market and academic bonanza. Then the Old Big East and SEC would have picked up the leftovers worth having.

JR, the Big Ten could have pushed for ND all it wanted in 1992, but the answer still would have been "No". It was "No" seven years later. The Big Ten missed the ND boat in 1922, not 1992.

(It would have been "No" for the New Big East too, as you listed above).

I think we all know that Terry D. The thing is it hasn't stopped overtures has it?

Lots of guys could make overtures to Kate Beckinsale, too, for all the good it will do them.

(03-01-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

The SEC should definitely have added Florida State before the ACC got around to it.

The Pac-10 should have offered UT a better-than-equal revenue distribution, and not just "Come join us and bring whichever buddies you want." The big picture is that everyone makes more money that way, even if Wazzu is making less than USC and UT. Also, it would have been easier to go after UT before the SWC started breaking up and some politicians decided to use the Longhorns as a liferaft for their own alma maters.

The Big Ten went in the wrong direction with Nebraska. Not enough people there, and not nearly the same football program they had in 1980. They had the right idea with Maryland, and if they had been more aggressive earlier (around the time they added Penn State), they could have gone after Maryland at that time among others. That was the time to try and get UVA and UNC.

I agree that at the time Penn St was added the Big 10 should have made an all out push.

When Kramer initially looked at Clemson, F.S.U., Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma in '92 he had the right idea, but had it 3 to 4 years too late. I'm not saying he would have been successful even earlier, but the idea was to get everything you want at once. We did consider jumping straight from 10 to 16 if we could get the right mix.

IMO, this adding 1 or 2 at the time and waiting 5 years has been a rotten strategy. It allows for too much resistance to build to an idea. If you make a pitch then you need to close the deal while everyone's interested.

At 10 the Big 10 should have made a push for Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Penn State. That would have been the market and academic bonanza. Then the Old Big East and SEC would have picked up the leftovers worth having.

Either the Big 10 or Pac 10 could have had Texas in 1989. But the Big 10 wasn't ready and Stanford vetoed the addition of Texas. By the time Stanford reconsidered, UT had already recommitted to the SWC. By the time a couple of years had passed, Texas Tech had too much influence to leave behind and neither the Pac 10 or Big 10 were interested in Texas Tech in the 90s.

If not for Stanford's veto of Texas, Texas and probably Colorado would have gone to the Pac in 1989. Texas A&M would have gone to the SEC, probably with Arkansas. South Carolina would probably have ended up in Big East football when it formed and Tulane, Louisville, Memphis and Tulsa would likely have joined the SWC.

(03-02-2018 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

The SEC should definitely have added Florida State before the ACC got around to it.

The Pac-10 should have offered UT a better-than-equal revenue distribution, and not just "Come join us and bring whichever buddies you want." The big picture is that everyone makes more money that way, even if Wazzu is making less than USC and UT. Also, it would have been easier to go after UT before the SWC started breaking up and some politicians decided to use the Longhorns as a liferaft for their own alma maters.

The Big Ten went in the wrong direction with Nebraska. Not enough people there, and not nearly the same football program they had in 1980. They had the right idea with Maryland, and if they had been more aggressive earlier (around the time they added Penn State), they could have gone after Maryland at that time among others. That was the time to try and get UVA and UNC.

I agree that at the time Penn St was added the Big 10 should have made an all out push.

When Kramer initially looked at Clemson, F.S.U., Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma in '92 he had the right idea, but had it 3 to 4 years too late. I'm not saying he would have been successful even earlier, but the idea was to get everything you want at once. We did consider jumping straight from 10 to 16 if we could get the right mix.

IMO, this adding 1 or 2 at the time and waiting 5 years has been a rotten strategy. It allows for too much resistance to build to an idea. If you make a pitch then you need to close the deal while everyone's interested.

At 10 the Big 10 should have made a push for Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Penn State. That would have been the market and academic bonanza. Then the Old Big East and SEC would have picked up the leftovers worth having.

Either the Big 10 or Pac 10 could have had Texas in 1989. But the Big 10 wasn't ready and Stanford vetoed the addition of Texas. By the time Stanford reconsidered, UT had already recommitted to the SWC. By the time a couple of years had passed, Texas Tech had too much influence to leave behind and neither the Pac 10 or Big 10 were interested in Texas Tech in the 90s.

I could see the PAC offering UT and Tech today, but would the Big 10? I have my doubts they could accommodate Tech.

And since the field has rather dramatically changed with regards to athletic fortunes in the past 28 years what would be the preferences today, both individually of the respective schools involved, and politically? We are in a rapidly evolving cultural and economic shift and the two are not necessarily mutually inclusive as to region and fit.

(03-02-2018 12:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

The SEC should definitely have added Florida State before the ACC got around to it.

The Pac-10 should have offered UT a better-than-equal revenue distribution, and not just "Come join us and bring whichever buddies you want." The big picture is that everyone makes more money that way, even if Wazzu is making less than USC and UT. Also, it would have been easier to go after UT before the SWC started breaking up and some politicians decided to use the Longhorns as a liferaft for their own alma maters.

The Big Ten went in the wrong direction with Nebraska. Not enough people there, and not nearly the same football program they had in 1980. They had the right idea with Maryland, and if they had been more aggressive earlier (around the time they added Penn State), they could have gone after Maryland at that time among others. That was the time to try and get UVA and UNC.

I agree that at the time Penn St was added the Big 10 should have made an all out push.

When Kramer initially looked at Clemson, F.S.U., Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma in '92 he had the right idea, but had it 3 to 4 years too late. I'm not saying he would have been successful even earlier, but the idea was to get everything you want at once. We did consider jumping straight from 10 to 16 if we could get the right mix.

IMO, this adding 1 or 2 at the time and waiting 5 years has been a rotten strategy. It allows for too much resistance to build to an idea. If you make a pitch then you need to close the deal while everyone's interested.

At 10 the Big 10 should have made a push for Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Penn State. That would have been the market and academic bonanza. Then the Old Big East and SEC would have picked up the leftovers worth having.

Either the Big 10 or Pac 10 could have had Texas in 1989. But the Big 10 wasn't ready and Stanford vetoed the addition of Texas. By the time Stanford reconsidered, UT had already recommitted to the SWC. By the time a couple of years had passed, Texas Tech had too much influence to leave behind and neither the Pac 10 or Big 10 were interested in Texas Tech in the 90s.

I could see the PAC offering UT and Tech today, but would the Big 10? I have my doubts they could accommodate Tech.

And since the field has rather dramatically changed with regards to athletic fortunes in the past 28 years what would be the preferences today, both individually of the respective schools involved, and politically? We are in a rapidly evolving cultural and economic shift and the two are not necessarily mutually inclusive as to region and fit.

Things have changes a lot since '89, I'm not sure Texas would be happy with the west coast today.