There's no need to block the Big Ten going South

The SEC footprint already contains a competitor

Ohio State Michigan USC, and Penn State already recruit nationally as is

(06-13-2023 08:36 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  There's no need to block the Big Ten going South

The SEC footprint already contains a competitor

Ohio State Michigan USC, and Penn State already recruit nationally as is

Wholly disagree. They may recruit nationally, but they don't play nationally and they have no outposts in the Southeast And not only do I think this way, but so too do our presidents.

(06-13-2023 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:36 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  There's no need to block the Big Ten going South

The SEC footprint already contains a competitor

Ohio State Michigan USC, and Penn State already recruit nationally as is

Wholly disagree. They may recruit nationally, but they don't play nationally and they have no outposts in the Southeast And not only do I think this way, but so too do our presidents.

We've repeatedly heard it reported that schools like to play in certain places/states, in order to help supplement recruiting.

As you note, adding a school to a conference can expand recruiting potential.

And the reverse can be true too.

If USC/UCLA want to recruit in California (and the west coast in general), and other schools in the Big10 do too, the Big10 may be disinclined to add more west coast schools. (Which was rumored at one point.)

Several schools in the south and southeast have apparently said no to questions about possibly joining the Big10, in the past. I remember it being reported that at one point Mr. Delany went around and talked with Texas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and North Carolina, among others.

But that was years ago. Who knows how things might go now.

(06-14-2023 02:20 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:36 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  There's no need to block the Big Ten going South

The SEC footprint already contains a competitor

Ohio State Michigan USC, and Penn State already recruit nationally as is

Wholly disagree. They may recruit nationally, but they don't play nationally and they have no outposts in the Southeast And not only do I think this way, but so too do our presidents.

We've repeatedly heard it reported that schools like to play in certain places/states, in order to help supplement recruiting.

As you note, adding a school to a conference can expand recruiting potential.

And the reverse can be true too.

If USC/UCLA want to recruit in California (and the west coast in general), and other schools in the Big10 do too, the Big10 may be disinclined to add more west coast schools. (Which was rumored at one point.)

Several schools in the south and southeast have apparently said no to questions about possibly joining the Big10, in the past. I remember it being reported that at one point Mr. Delany went around and talked with Texas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and North Carolina, among others.

But that was years ago. Who knows how things might go now.

Who knows how things may go now? The school presidents know. The ADs know. And the answer is even worse for the Big 10 now than in years past. Everyone knows that the global supply chains could get fouled easily. We have warned U.S. personnel to get out of Taiwan along with their families. Ware is a major destabilizing factor because of U.S. dependence upon cheap labor abroad to manufacture essential goods, not the least of which are pharmaceuticals, mostly of the maintenance variety. But that also means the loss of our #1 supplier of computer chips with relying heavily upon the PRC. With the Ukraine situation that makes 2 hot spots both impacting goods and services to Europe and the United States.

The cost of fuel and transportation is up. That impacts decisions as well.

The top supplier of recruits for playing these games is the Southeast and Southwest and that concentration of talent is only becoming more profound.

The idea behind a Deep South strategy for the SEC is a simple one. We can't do anything about all of our immediate neighbors recruiting from the same region, but we can make essential moves which strengthen the regions hold over it. So, it is the reverse of USC and UCLA who want to be the California talent rich schools in a somewhat depleted Big 10. Only in the SEC's case they want to be the only SE and SW talent rich programs in the nation, fully realizing that other SE and SW programs added to the SEC only strengthen the regional interest, and is the best way to keep those recruits at home, especially in the age of NIL and Pay for Play.

Now should that model eventually include simply 6 to 8 more schools with solid brands and audience draw nationally that still makes more for everyone. But we don't get there by spreading the talent now. We get there by withholding it and forcing those other national brands to join us. That way the talent and wealth stays centralized. Think of the SEC as the OPEC of college sports. The demand for what we have is the same as the global demand for limited oil supply. The pools of talent have been consumed and dried up elsewhere. That makes our product more valuable each passing year. At least as long as the college sports engine demands the fuel we produce. Now if the national pastime becomes curling or hockey that would be cold fusion to combustion engine. But we both know that's not happening, at least not yet.

(06-14-2023 09:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 02:20 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:36 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  There's no need to block the Big Ten going South

The SEC footprint already contains a competitor

Ohio State Michigan USC, and Penn State already recruit nationally as is

Wholly disagree. They may recruit nationally, but they don't play nationally and they have no outposts in the Southeast And not only do I think this way, but so too do our presidents.

We've repeatedly heard it reported that schools like to play in certain places/states, in order to help supplement recruiting.

As you note, adding a school to a conference can expand recruiting potential.

And the reverse can be true too.

If USC/UCLA want to recruit in California (and the west coast in general), and other schools in the Big10 do too, the Big10 may be disinclined to add more west coast schools. (Which was rumored at one point.)

Several schools in the south and southeast have apparently said no to questions about possibly joining the Big10, in the past. I remember it being reported that at one point Mr. Delany went around and talked with Texas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and North Carolina, among others.

But that was years ago. Who knows how things might go now.

Who knows how things may go now? The school presidents know. The ADs know. And the answer is even worse for the Big 10 now than in years past. Everyone knows that the global supply chains could get fouled easily. We have warned U.S. personnel to get out of Taiwan along with their families. Ware is a major destabilizing factor because of U.S. dependence upon cheap labor abroad to manufacture essential goods, not the least of which are pharmaceuticals, mostly of the maintenance variety. But that also means the loss of our #1 supplier of computer chips with relying heavily upon the PRC. With the Ukraine situation that makes 2 hot spots both impacting goods and services to Europe and the United States.

The cost of fuel and transportation is up. That impacts decisions as well.

The top supplier of recruits for playing these games is the Southeast and Southwest and that concentration of talent is only becoming more profound.

The idea behind a Deep South strategy for the SEC is a simple one. We can't do anything about all of our immediate neighbors recruiting from the same region, but we can make essential moves which strengthen the regions hold over it. So, it is the reverse of USC and UCLA who want to be the California talent rich schools in a somewhat depleted Big 10. Only in the SEC's case they want to be the only SE and SW talent rich programs in the nation, fully realizing that other SE and SW programs added to the SEC only strengthen the regional interest, and is the best way to keep those recruits at home, especially in the age of NIL and Pay for Play.

Now should that model eventually include simply 6 to 8 more schools with solid brands and audience draw nationally that still makes more for everyone. But we don't get there by spreading the talent now. We get there by withholding it and forcing those other national brands to join us. That way the talent and wealth stays centralized. Think of the SEC as the OPEC of college sports. The demand for what we have is the same as the global demand for limited oil supply. The pools of talent have been consumed and dried up elsewhere. That makes our product more valuable each passing year. At least as long as the college sports engine demands the fuel we produce. Now if the national pastime becomes curling or hockey that would be cold fusion to combustion engine. But we both know that's not happening, at least not yet.

But just like the NFL, won't the players just go wherever they make the most money/get most playing time regardless of where their hometown is located?

Not sure “blocking” is the goal. If the Big Ten wants Rice and Tulane, the SEC shouldn’t do anything to “block” that.

The mutually desired properties are the goal. UNC probably tops that list and is the 1a target. Football is also the SEC’s calling card, so 2 of 3 of Clemson, FSU, and Miami is probably the 1b target. GT, UVA, and Duke to the Big Ten shouldn’t impact the SEC much.

(06-14-2023 11:48 AM)Strut Wrote:  But just like the NFL, won't the players just go wherever they make the most money/get most playing time regardless of where their hometown is located?

Not necessarily. If your goal is to make the NFL (rather than get a few bucks in college), you play in the school that gives you the best change to make that happen.

What people discount on this board is the fact that the SEC is already head-and-shoulders better than any other league in the country. You could take the sixteen best teams not in the SEC and play #1 vs. #1, #2 vs. #2, and on down and the SEC would be favored in half of those games.

With that being the case, recruits flock to the SEC -- and therefore away from schools not in the SEC. I just can't imagine Alabama's president is afraid of losing recruits to Wisconsin or Minnesota because the Badgers play a game in Tallahassee every four years.

(06-14-2023 11:48 AM)Strut Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 09:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 02:20 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:36 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  There's no need to block the Big Ten going South

The SEC footprint already contains a competitor

Ohio State Michigan USC, and Penn State already recruit nationally as is

Wholly disagree. They may recruit nationally, but they don't play nationally and they have no outposts in the Southeast And not only do I think this way, but so too do our presidents.

We've repeatedly heard it reported that schools like to play in certain places/states, in order to help supplement recruiting.

As you note, adding a school to a conference can expand recruiting potential.

And the reverse can be true too.

If USC/UCLA want to recruit in California (and the west coast in general), and other schools in the Big10 do too, the Big10 may be disinclined to add more west coast schools. (Which was rumored at one point.)

Several schools in the south and southeast have apparently said no to questions about possibly joining the Big10, in the past. I remember it being reported that at one point Mr. Delany went around and talked with Texas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and North Carolina, among others.

But that was years ago. Who knows how things might go now.

Who knows how things may go now? The school presidents know. The ADs know. And the answer is even worse for the Big 10 now than in years past. Everyone knows that the global supply chains could get fouled easily. We have warned U.S. personnel to get out of Taiwan along with their families. Ware is a major destabilizing factor because of U.S. dependence upon cheap labor abroad to manufacture essential goods, not the least of which are pharmaceuticals, mostly of the maintenance variety. But that also means the loss of our #1 supplier of computer chips with relying heavily upon the PRC. With the Ukraine situation that makes 2 hot spots both impacting goods and services to Europe and the United States.

The cost of fuel and transportation is up. That impacts decisions as well.

The top supplier of recruits for playing these games is the Southeast and Southwest and that concentration of talent is only becoming more profound.

The idea behind a Deep South strategy for the SEC is a simple one. We can't do anything about all of our immediate neighbors recruiting from the same region, but we can make essential moves which strengthen the regions hold over it. So, it is the reverse of USC and UCLA who want to be the California talent rich schools in a somewhat depleted Big 10. Only in the SEC's case they want to be the only SE and SW talent rich programs in the nation, fully realizing that other SE and SW programs added to the SEC only strengthen the regional interest, and is the best way to keep those recruits at home, especially in the age of NIL and Pay for Play.

Now should that model eventually include simply 6 to 8 more schools with solid brands and audience draw nationally that still makes more for everyone. But we don't get there by spreading the talent now. We get there by withholding it and forcing those other national brands to join us. That way the talent and wealth stays centralized. Think of the SEC as the OPEC of college sports. The demand for what we have is the same as the global demand for limited oil supply. The pools of talent have been consumed and dried up elsewhere. That makes our product more valuable each passing year. At least as long as the college sports engine demands the fuel we produce. Now if the national pastime becomes curling or hockey that would be cold fusion to combustion engine. But we both know that's not happening, at least not yet.

But just like the NFL, won't the players just go wherever they make the most money/get most playing time regardless of where their hometown is located?

Time has shown over and over that while a few will chase the dollar, as long as the dollars are relatively close, they choose to stay closer to home. The dollar difference between the SEC and Big 10 would not be great. Media money helps the Big 10, but ticket sales and donations put the SEC over the top year after year. Last year the Big 10 had their largest difference in media revenue over the SEC in the last couple of decades, 9 million. The SEC schools earned on average 15 million more than the Big 10 in all other sources of revenue but media money and averaged 6 million a more per school in total revenue produced.

Now to the argument just above. Advertising rates are impacted when a conference doesn't dominate a region. Notre Dame back doors the Big 10 in most major Northern Midwestern cities giving those who seek to reach those markets a cheaper alternative with which to do it. I think that's one reason the Big 10 wanted NBC in house so to speak. At least that helps mitigate the problem Notre Dame presents to them.

Yes, the SEC can keep its recruits even if the Big 10 played in Atlanta or Tallahassee. What they would lose is exclusivity as FOX could undercut ESPN in the region for ad rates. The SEC and ACC make what they do because ESPN controls those rights. Why was ESPN willing to pay the SEC so much for T1 rights? It gets CBS the hell out of the South! Disney/ESPN now has more control than ever over advertising in the Southeast and has expanded that dominance to a degree in Texas and Oklahoma.

(06-14-2023 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 11:48 AM)Strut Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 09:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 02:20 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(06-13-2023 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Wholly disagree. They may recruit nationally, but they don't play nationally and they have no outposts in the Southeast And not only do I think this way, but so too do our presidents.

We've repeatedly heard it reported that schools like to play in certain places/states, in order to help supplement recruiting.

As you note, adding a school to a conference can expand recruiting potential.

And the reverse can be true too.

If USC/UCLA want to recruit in California (and the west coast in general), and other schools in the Big10 do too, the Big10 may be disinclined to add more west coast schools. (Which was rumored at one point.)

Several schools in the south and southeast have apparently said no to questions about possibly joining the Big10, in the past. I remember it being reported that at one point Mr. Delany went around and talked with Texas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and North Carolina, among others.

But that was years ago. Who knows how things might go now.

Who knows how things may go now? The school presidents know. The ADs know. And the answer is even worse for the Big 10 now than in years past. Everyone knows that the global supply chains could get fouled easily. We have warned U.S. personnel to get out of Taiwan along with their families. Ware is a major destabilizing factor because of U.S. dependence upon cheap labor abroad to manufacture essential goods, not the least of which are pharmaceuticals, mostly of the maintenance variety. But that also means the loss of our #1 supplier of computer chips with relying heavily upon the PRC. With the Ukraine situation that makes 2 hot spots both impacting goods and services to Europe and the United States.

The cost of fuel and transportation is up. That impacts decisions as well.

The top supplier of recruits for playing these games is the Southeast and Southwest and that concentration of talent is only becoming more profound.

The idea behind a Deep South strategy for the SEC is a simple one. We can't do anything about all of our immediate neighbors recruiting from the same region, but we can make essential moves which strengthen the regions hold over it. So, it is the reverse of USC and UCLA who want to be the California talent rich schools in a somewhat depleted Big 10. Only in the SEC's case they want to be the only SE and SW talent rich programs in the nation, fully realizing that other SE and SW programs added to the SEC only strengthen the regional interest, and is the best way to keep those recruits at home, especially in the age of NIL and Pay for Play.

Now should that model eventually include simply 6 to 8 more schools with solid brands and audience draw nationally that still makes more for everyone. But we don't get there by spreading the talent now. We get there by withholding it and forcing those other national brands to join us. That way the talent and wealth stays centralized. Think of the SEC as the OPEC of college sports. The demand for what we have is the same as the global demand for limited oil supply. The pools of talent have been consumed and dried up elsewhere. That makes our product more valuable each passing year. At least as long as the college sports engine demands the fuel we produce. Now if the national pastime becomes curling or hockey that would be cold fusion to combustion engine. But we both know that's not happening, at least not yet.

But just like the NFL, won't the players just go wherever they make the most money/get most playing time regardless of where their hometown is located?

Time has shown over and over that while a few will chase the dollar, as long as the dollars are relatively close, they choose to stay closer to home. The dollar difference between the SEC and Big 10 would not be great. Media money helps the Big 10, but ticket sales and donations put the SEC over the top year after year. Last year the Big 10 had their largest difference in media revenue over the SEC in the last couple of decades, 9 million. The SEC schools earned on average 15 million more than the Big 10 in all other sources of revenue but media money and averaged 6 million a more per school in total revenue produced.

Now to the argument just above. Advertising rates are impacted when a conference doesn't dominate a region. Notre Dame back doors the Big 10 in most major Northern Midwestern cities giving those who seek to reach those markets a cheaper alternative with which to do it. I think that's one reason the Big 10 wanted NBC in house so to speak. At least that helps mitigate the problem Notre Dame presents to them.

Yes, the SEC can keep its recruits even if the Big 10 played in Atlanta or Tallahassee. What they would lose is exclusivity as FOX could undercut ESPN in the region for ad rates. The SEC and ACC make what they do because ESPN controls those rights. Why was ESPN willing to pay the SEC so much for T1 rights? It gets CBS the hell out of the South! Disney/ESPN now has more control than ever over advertising in the Southeast and has expanded that dominance to a degree in Texas and Oklahoma.

JRsec your point about ad rates is very solid and great point; I hadn't really considered that angle.

We all know that Pay to Play is not new to college football, but those who benefitted that way the most in the past won't have those same advantages going forward.

So when the money is "really the same" across the country, just like free agents in NFL they don't stay home or even want to be close to home until maybe towards the end of their career. My point is it's a new model to college, but not the NFL. How many NFL players play at home or near home, probably not many.

Skating to where the puck will be doesn't require adding teams all over the country, NFL has been 32 for quite some time. Players go where they make the most money, and get playing time.

(06-14-2023 02:28 PM)Strut Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 11:48 AM)Strut Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 09:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2023 02:20 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  We've repeatedly heard it reported that schools like to play in certain places/states, in order to help supplement recruiting.

As you note, adding a school to a conference can expand recruiting potential.

And the reverse can be true too.

If USC/UCLA want to recruit in California (and the west coast in general), and other schools in the Big10 do too, the Big10 may be disinclined to add more west coast schools. (Which was rumored at one point.)

Several schools in the south and southeast have apparently said no to questions about possibly joining the Big10, in the past. I remember it being reported that at one point Mr. Delany went around and talked with Texas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and North Carolina, among others.

But that was years ago. Who knows how things might go now.

Who knows how things may go now? The school presidents know. The ADs know. And the answer is even worse for the Big 10 now than in years past. Everyone knows that the global supply chains could get fouled easily. We have warned U.S. personnel to get out of Taiwan along with their families. Ware is a major destabilizing factor because of U.S. dependence upon cheap labor abroad to manufacture essential goods, not the least of which are pharmaceuticals, mostly of the maintenance variety. But that also means the loss of our #1 supplier of computer chips with relying heavily upon the PRC. With the Ukraine situation that makes 2 hot spots both impacting goods and services to Europe and the United States.

The cost of fuel and transportation is up. That impacts decisions as well.

The top supplier of recruits for playing these games is the Southeast and Southwest and that concentration of talent is only becoming more profound.

The idea behind a Deep South strategy for the SEC is a simple one. We can't do anything about all of our immediate neighbors recruiting from the same region, but we can make essential moves which strengthen the regions hold over it. So, it is the reverse of USC and UCLA who want to be the California talent rich schools in a somewhat depleted Big 10. Only in the SEC's case they want to be the only SE and SW talent rich programs in the nation, fully realizing that other SE and SW programs added to the SEC only strengthen the regional interest, and is the best way to keep those recruits at home, especially in the age of NIL and Pay for Play.

Now should that model eventually include simply 6 to 8 more schools with solid brands and audience draw nationally that still makes more for everyone. But we don't get there by spreading the talent now. We get there by withholding it and forcing those other national brands to join us. That way the talent and wealth stays centralized. Think of the SEC as the OPEC of college sports. The demand for what we have is the same as the global demand for limited oil supply. The pools of talent have been consumed and dried up elsewhere. That makes our product more valuable each passing year. At least as long as the college sports engine demands the fuel we produce. Now if the national pastime becomes curling or hockey that would be cold fusion to combustion engine. But we both know that's not happening, at least not yet.

But just like the NFL, won't the players just go wherever they make the most money/get most playing time regardless of where their hometown is located?

Time has shown over and over that while a few will chase the dollar, as long as the dollars are relatively close, they choose to stay closer to home. The dollar difference between the SEC and Big 10 would not be great. Media money helps the Big 10, but ticket sales and donations put the SEC over the top year after year. Last year the Big 10 had their largest difference in media revenue over the SEC in the last couple of decades, 9 million. The SEC schools earned on average 15 million more than the Big 10 in all other sources of revenue but media money and averaged 6 million a more per school in total revenue produced.

Now to the argument just above. Advertising rates are impacted when a conference doesn't dominate a region. Notre Dame back doors the Big 10 in most major Northern Midwestern cities giving those who seek to reach those markets a cheaper alternative with which to do it. I think that's one reason the Big 10 wanted NBC in house so to speak. At least that helps mitigate the problem Notre Dame presents to them.

Yes, the SEC can keep its recruits even if the Big 10 played in Atlanta or Tallahassee. What they would lose is exclusivity as FOX could undercut ESPN in the region for ad rates. The SEC and ACC make what they do because ESPN controls those rights. Why was ESPN willing to pay the SEC so much for T1 rights? It gets CBS the hell out of the South! Disney/ESPN now has more control than ever over advertising in the Southeast and has expanded that dominance to a degree in Texas and Oklahoma.

JRsec your point about ad rates is very solid and great point; I hadn't really considered that angle.

We all know that Pay to Play is not new to college football, but those who benefitted that way the most in the past won't have those same advantages going forward.

So when the money is "really the same" across the country, just like free agents in NFL they don't stay home or even want to be close to home until maybe towards the end of their career. My point is it's a new model to college, but not the NFL. How many NFL players play at home or near home, probably not many.

Skating to where the puck will be doesn't require adding teams all over the country, NFL has been 32 for quite some time. Players go where they make the most money, and get playing time.

The bolded is the key which has been leveling the playing field (court) for baseball and basketball at a much faster pace than in football. Clearly what we have seen in football is that any solid team's #2 QB is going to leave to start somewhere else. You can't impress scouts from the NFL if you are on the bench. The leveling in talent at places like Ohio State and Alabama are in the 2nd string.

Everyone's second stringers are the ones in the portal. So depth has become a vulnerability for everyone. When your #1 goes down it is likely what used to be #3 in your depth chart which takes the field to replace them and there is leveling of the playing field, at the second position on the depth chart. This is broadening the competitiveness for the first 6 games of the season. When an overall weaker brand hits the second half of the season and those transfer portal players start going down, then depth takes a turn again. The gamblers know this because they require knowing when a player is down. I think if a key brand escapes the first half of the season without an upset or two against them then they have a great advantage on the back six before CFP time.

(06-14-2023 11:56 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Not sure “blocking” is the goal. If the Big Ten wants Rice and Tulane, the SEC shouldn’t do anything to “block” that.

The mutually desired properties are the goal. UNC probably tops that list and is the 1a target. Football is also the SEC’s calling card, so 2 of 3 of Clemson, FSU, and Miami is probably the 1b target. GT, UVA, and Duke to the Big Ten shouldn’t impact the SEC much.

Must disagree with you here. As much as I don't care for GT, GT is in a city bigger than Durham or Charlottesville. In addition, look where the SEC Championship Game for football is. Do you really want a reminder of your biggest conference competitor at your biggest athletic event of the season?? I for one, do not.