Comments on: With Expansion Talk Heating Up, Here Are Four “Best-Case” Scenarios For The SEC

By: Southern_DC_Gent

Southern_DC_Gent — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:55:48 +0000

Contrary to popular opinion, UNC and UVA are still very much Southern schools that are proud of their heritage. While some of the faculty might prefer to be associated with “academic heavyweights” of the B1G, the vast majority of people associated with these schools would prefer SEC membership should the ACC implode.

The UVA rivalry is just as important to UNC as Duke, at least historically. If those three were offered together, I think they might join the SEC party. If the B12 were to fracture, the remaining 3 to get to 20 could be UT, OU, and KU.

NCSU would most likely end up in some combination of surviving ACC, Big East, B12 teams as the fourth conference.

If the goal, on the other hand, is to lock down the South, you could take UVA, FSU, UNC, Clemson, Duke, and Georgia Tech. For rivalry week, every Eastern state would have an in-state rival, except UVA, who would get UK.

Another out of the box idea is to steal Maryland from the B1G. Take UNC, UVA, Duke, and Maryland to get to 18, with two spots left for, i.e. FSU and tbd.

I know this is all getting out of hand, but I could see the SEC and B1G at 20 teams, with the PAC and a reconfigured ACC surviving as 12-16 team conferences.

By: Your Sunday Chryco Auto News UPDATE: | Chryco Auto News Digest

Your Sunday Chryco Auto News UPDATE: | Chryco Auto News Digest — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:41:34 +0000

[...] With Expansion Talk Heating Up, Here Are Four “Best-Case” Scenarios For The SEC [...]

By: JWF

JWF — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:00:52 +0000

@larryphelps20 @JRsec @mowens75 This is ridiculous. There are more than 3 top teams in the SEC. Auburn just won a NC a few years ago, the last SEC team not named Alabama to do so. Tennessee, followed by Georgia has more SEC championships than any other school not named Alabama. And some of us remember who represented the east in the Championship game for the last two years in a row. It wasn’t Florida.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:48:19 +0000

@larryphelps20 @AllTideUp Yep, we’ve had very similar discussions down here on what it would take to crack the ACC. Since the SEC wants into the same two states (Virginia and North Carolina) and their first choices would be the same as those of the Big 10 with a fall back of N.C. State and Virginia Tech the same logic applies. It was known to us that Florida State wanted the SEC, but not the Big 12. Many of us felt that ultimately we might have to take Florida State to get the ball rolling. That alone would mean that we would have to move to 18. to get into the states we wanted. I believe Slive was hoping that Delany’s move for Maryland would prompt the movement we all desired. However it just cracked the dam but didn’t break it, yet. While we weren’t looking at Georgia Tech the logic was that if Clemson went with F.S.U. that the ACC would be finished as a power football conference and that Miami, Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech would have to move to protect their programs. Then somewhere in the discussion it became clear that the SEC’s best shot at U.N.C. would only come if we took Duke and possibly even N.C. State as well. Since we would still need 1 slot to get into Virginia no spot could be spared for F.S.U. to get it started. In that kind of move we are taking 3 that don’t add markets to get two that do. Even the Big 12 that would like to have F.S.U. can’t lure them unless other’s move. So we have a standoff. I’ still think it takes F.S.U. moving anywhere to get it started.

By: larryphelps20

larryphelps20 — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:15:10 +0000

@JRsec @AllTideUp 1st the B10 has to get to 16. And I think that that is a bit problematic for them. I think it’s obvious to most that the B10 wants UVA and UNC. Problem is those schools will only leave the ACC if the ship is completely sinking. How and if we reach that point is the answer. If I had to guess I’d say the B10 tries to get GT and FSU. FSU will be a tough sell for Delany to the pipes that head up the B10. If those two came on board the ACC as a viable heavyweight conference would be kneecapped. At that point Clemson and Miami have to think about their football program’s long-term viability in an ACC that is clearly a distant 5th from a football standpoint. If they decide to jump (and to me Clemson’s only option is the B12….Miami as well w/ an outside, outside shot at the B10) then that would spell the complete death of the ACC.

So to answer your question about who would be 17 and 18….I’d say UVA and UNC. The ACC has to be irrevocably damaged for those two to leave. As for 19 and 20 if the B10 ever thought to go that high. You’re looking at IMO Notre Dame and either Duke, Miami, Pitt, Kansas or if ND dictates they need a certain schoool like BC to be #20 in order for them to join.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:01:45 +0000

@Roggespierre @BonzaiB @I4Bama Well since they are spending our tax dollars and contributions and claiming to position our schools strategically for the future, I would hope so. But, having worked with a vast spectrum of leaders from family heads to mayors and council persons, to state leaders and military leaders I concede your point. All one has to do is to look at the household debt levels, the failing cities, the short-funded state programs, and the lobby led purchases of boondoggle military hardware and systems to prove your point.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:57:27 +0000

@Roggespierre @BonzaiB @I4Bama Since they are spending our tax dollars and our contributions and they claim to be strategically positioning our schools for the future, I would hope so. But, having worked with all manor of persons involved in all levels of decision making from home to civic to state to military and knowing how they resolved such matters I concede your point. You need only point to personal debt levels, city failures, state budget shortfalls, and military lobby led purchases of boondoggle systems to prove your point.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:50:49 +0000

@larryphelps20 @AllTideUp You would know more about that than I would so who do you think the Big 10 would take to get to 18 or 20?

By: larryphelps20

larryphelps20 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:34:03 +0000

@John at MrSEC @Roggespierre @BonzaiB @mowens75 Agreed. Only way BC gets a seat at the B10 table is if Notre Dame says they have to be included in order for them to join as well.

By: larryphelps20

larryphelps20 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:31:30 +0000

@JRsec @AllTideUp If the B10 thought that BC, Syracuse or UConn made sense they would have added them by now. As it is the B10 is not at risk of “losing” either of the 3 to the B12 or the SEC. And the only way either of those 3 get a spot is if the conference is stuck on 19 and needs another school AND ND desires BC’s inclusion. I see no situation in which UConn and Syracuse will ever be in the B10. The B10 has done their due diligence on both and have deemed them lacking.

By: BonzaiB

BonzaiB — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:40:02 +0000

@The regular guy Academic standings are based on a number of criteria that actually do not have anything to do with academics, and they favor private institutions, always have. One of the key measures is graduation rates, and private institutions have it all over public institutions there. It is no secret that the more affluent’s families have a much better chance of keeping their kids in school (at least three guys in my freshman calc class left for the Air Force to get the GI Bill, so they could finish up later. Two came back an graduated, don’t know what happened to the third. Those guys counted against the graduation rates at my public university. So, my guess is, if you examine graduation rates of those 50, you are going to find that is a significant chunk of the difference between who is #1 and who is #50. Also, the ability to attract grant money for research is also a biggie.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:36:15 +0000

@Seanbo

No big deal. As I said, it’s a common misconception. Because Florida pumps out more signees, it’s natural to think SEC schools always sign more from Florida. But the last few years Georgia has led the way.

All the best,
John

By: The regular guy

The regular guy — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:23:42 +0000

And another thing . . . UNC, Duke and Virginia will NOT be coming to the SEC. Too much pride and unfounded belief in academic superiority. VA Tech and NC State both pull SEC academic standing up. Currently, only FL, UGA, Mizzou, Tex A&M and Bama are near the top of middle of the coveted US News Top 50 Public Universities. Auburn and TN are tied for last. The rest, not there at all. Va Tech and UNC — both near the top to middle.

By: The regular guy

The regular guy — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:16:06 +0000

A lot of interest in this topic . . . and why not? The perfect marriage of CFB and business. I think a lot of people are over thinking this whole genre of sports speculation. It’s pretty simple: TV eyeballs and monied markets. Example: WV not monied (relatively speaking) and not many TVA eyeball. Northerrn VA/DC/central Maryland equals LOTS of monied TV eyeballs (too bad it’s mostly fed by our tax money –a story for another day).

Anyway, when the SEC expands, either because it has to or wants to, it will look for monied TV eyeballs. My guess, the path of least resistence is Virginia Tech and NC State, looking East, of course. Looking west, I’d guess slim pickins’, if you know what I mean. Tex A&M already has a nice lock on Texas monied eyeballs (and, yes, along with those other schools, like [little ut] texas and TCU). Okie & Okie State? Hmmm, maybe, but not as rich as the two in the east.

I see FSU and Clemson and maybe Miami headed to the Big 12. A nice fit for them, if you ask me. They can have a little eastern enclave and will spend a lot of weekends whipping up on ut and the rest.

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:56:04 +0000

@John at MrSEC
Florida produces more recruits but more Georgia recruits sign with SEC schools.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:38:00 +0000

@buddha22 @JRsec @mowens75 @larryphelps20 Everybody is so hungry for cash this will change. Besides absence makes the heart grow fonder, alumni too. They’ll pony up for premium tickets at neutral sites when those rivalries are rekindled.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:56:28 +0000

@AllTideUp The only reason I can think of to stop short of 20 would be in the event we were serious about taking two from the Big 12 should they dissolve as well. If the Big 10 moves to 20 and we move to 20 (and we should) then the future will be 3 conferences of 20 or at most 24, but most likely 20. If there is a move to 3 conferences of 20 each conferences annual payout automatically increases by $40 million in playoff money no longer split 4 ways, and by the total payouts of the 4 teams that are eliminated by the 3 x 20 format. That’s going to be about another 80 to 100 million depending of tier 1 & 2 payouts to the conferences for what would have been a 4 x 16 model.

Now, here is why we need to move to 20 from the start. First, each league will wind up playing a 10 game conference schedule. There will be little room to protect rivals who wind up in different conferences. Other obligations may eliminate games like Clemson and South Carolina, Georgia Tech and Georgia, and Florida and Florida State if we don’t find a way to guarantee those annual games.

CBS would pay more to have those games to choose from annually. Auburn versus Alabama is one of the most viewed games nationally every year (last year was a dud though). The aforementioned games need to be the annual property of the conference for the sake of viewers, crowds, and fans and alumni. It would be a crime if any of them should fall prey to realignment. Our brand is the Southeast. Our style is tough defensive and varied offensive approaches to the game. Our drawing card is week to week tough games.
That doesn’t need to be watered down. If Virginia and North Carolina are our goals then nail them down.

Let’s at least pick up North Carolina, N.C. State and Virginia Tech. If Duke is a requirement then do it. But let’s consolidate, defend our brand (the Southeast) and protect our style by adding Florida State and Clemson and stopping with a very solid South.

If the Big 10 wants into the South let them take Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Miami if they want into Florida. That only leaves them 3 slots left for consolidating New England and expanding in the Midwest. Kansas, Boston College, and Syracuse, or perhaps Connecticut.

The PAC can take their 8 from the Big 12 or the West to get to 20 and we’ll all be done.

There will be losers: Cincinnati, Louisville, T.C.U., Wake Forest, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, the remainder of B.C./Syracuse/Connecticut, South Florida and Baylor. But what the heck just wait and see Notre Dame will organize them into a non-conference conference and will get a boon of a playoff spot at the expense of someone else when they have a great year. That will be 70 teams in the upper tier.

By: Mike007

Mike007 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:51:53 +0000

@buddha22 @Mike007 @larryphelps20
Yea…I can tell; it shows in the standings. There is another positive; those Big 12 rejects in Columbia don’t have to play them anymore

By: BonzaiB

BonzaiB — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:31:51 +0000

@Seanbo After this year, it would be a crime to seperate A&M and Bama. Gotta tell you, I think those two are headed for a few years of epic slug fests. I watched that game and was impressed by a couple of things. 1. Bama fans were as fired up as I have seen them in the 3rd and 4th quarter, and 2. the Aggies I know are already stocking up on throat losengers to show them that Kyle can rock too. I know this is a little off topic, but this match up has potential for the long term. No offense Auburn, but I think the Ags and the Tide are going to make some headlines as a match up for a few years.

By: BonzaiB

BonzaiB — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:25:04 +0000

@John at MrSEC @LifeLongGarnetGold Excellent point. A year ago I would have said no way to FSU (Gator here). Still don’t like the implications of FSU and UF in the SEC, BUT:

Now that the expansion fuse has been lit, FSU has to be considered (there are better first pick options out there) if the expansion of other conferences leaves the SEC with an unfilled chair to fill out the conference. FSU is a good cultural fit for the SEC, and as much as I hate to admit it, over the years they will produce very, very good competition. Better to pick a school that has demonstrated the ability to not only fit in, but to win.

And I like the quartet descriptor. Just like Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Arkansas formed sort of a Western quartet over the last few years. Now maybe it A&M, Alabama, LSU and Arkansas vs the Auburn, FSU, Georgia, Florida quartet.

I like that. Of course, in that scenario, Auburn actually could lay claim to either the West or the East with their rivalry with Bama. But I like that Quartet concept. USC, UT, Vandy……

By: JepH

JepH — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:50:56 +0000

Here’s something to consider about an 18-team sec with unc, duke, ncsu, and va tech, the football divisions wouldn’t be very appealing for the eastern teams in terms of rivalries or matchup excitement from fans assuming they keep the same east/west allingment. In the east, you would have vatech, the four carolina schools, uga, uf, uk, and either tenn or vandy (I assume tenn). That means that tenn woud be split from every one of its major historic rivals (Since Florida only really became a rival in the 1990′s). So that would mean that either tenn’s annual rivalry with vandy or alabama woud go away, just like the one with Ole Miss did. And if Bama/UT was no longer an annual game anyway I expect permanent crossover games would be eliminated entirely, the only permananent rivalry that people would care about saving would be UGA Auburn, and I doubt there would be enough support among AD’s for leaguewide (and increasingly non-sensical) permanent crossover opponents to protect a single game. Otherwise there would be really stupid permanent games like NCSU and Missouri (as a random example). It might actually make more sense to move both vandy and ut to the west and auburn to the east, leaving the Iron Bowl as the ONLY permanent crossover rivalry (which would only increase the ”specialness” of that game, but I don’t know how feasible that would be. The biggest scheduling victim would be Florida in either case. Florida would trade annual games with lsu (a personal favorite of mine), possibly tennessee, vandy (an academic school, in a major media market, traditional opponent, and improving in football dramatically) and missouri (at least it has some reputation for football and is another major media market) for north carolina, va tech, possibly auburn, duke (an academic school with none of the benefits of vandy), and NCSU (which would be equal to mizzou except for the fact that two other NC schools were already on the schedule) You know what happens when you put three North Carolina schools on a Florida school’s schedule every year? You get Florida State’s half empy stadium. Forget about going to road games either. North Carolina is so far from most of UF’s alumni base that i might as well be Califormia. (which actually might be easier for someone Florida to get to than Chapel Hill, and almost certainly Blacksburg) I know that Florida fans don’t travel well anyway, but some at least try. I know that fan support isn’t really taken into consideration here, but it would be nice if it was. In a dream scenario, I’d want the SEC to go to 18 with Fla State, Miami, Clemson and GaTech, but would sadly be too awesome to exit in a world where it’s all about the short term money rather than the long term common sense.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:46:11 +0000

I think Slive and the SEC are reluctant to go past 16 right now and don’t want to hit 20, but it’s the uncertainty factor of what life will be like without higher numbers that concerns me. If the Big Ten is just trying to get as many schools as they can then eventually the SEC has to curb their appetite for them or risk being relegated to 2nd place permanently. Any school that goes to the Big Ten will almost certainly always be in that league forever. Fear is a poor decision maker, but it’s better than letting terms be dictated to you.

So the question is what is the SEC more afraid of…a 20 team league that at the very least rivals whatever the Big Ten can put together or a smaller league that can’t expand in the future because every strong product is already off the table? I’m a fan of Slive being more proactive than reactive in all this. The endgame should be the target, not the afterthought.

I like what was said below; UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, and Florida State should be the top 4. The more congruent and market revolutionizing number is 20 though. Clemson, Pittsburgh, NC State, Louisville…they shouldn’t be off the table for the SEC. If the SEC is prepared to take the first 4 and 2 of the latter then the Big Ten can’t match that move even if they land Notre Dame. I wonder if there is a game of chicken going on behind the scenes?

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:30:56 +0000

@Roggespierre @JRsec @larryphelps20
I’m not sure the cable TV days are on their way out just yet. Part of the reason for the peaking in subscription rates is that satellite TV is easier and more affordable to get than ever before(sorry for the commercial). U-verse is also making a mark on the market. I don’t think TV networks as we know them will go away anytime soon, but the way in which they are delivered will change in the coming decades.

For example, the internet has changed the way we communicate and watch shows and while it is almost mundane for many people we forget that a lot of Americans still don’t have internet access at home. Some in fact, still rely on traditional antenna broadcasting if they want to watch TV. That number is ever smaller, but the point remains. The total switch from cable broadcasting to internet broadcasting isn’t totally feasible yet, but that is probably what we will see next. It would be too easy of a transition and the technology already exists. Watching shows on demand is a growing trend, but sports are a little different in how we consume them.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:22:02 +0000

@Roggespierre @JRsec @larryphelps20
I’ve never had NFL Sunday Ticket so I don’t really know how it works, but I think the sort of system we may see in the future would be more along the “Netflix” model than a PPV model. It would be conferences or individual networks offering internet channels with which they will stream their content in exchange for a monthly subscription rate. I could see 2 or 3 tiers of subscriptions being offered, one for casual fans who like to watch big games, a premium tier for dedicated fans, and a top level for the diehards just looking for whatever content is out there.

I agree that pro and college leagues benefit from bundling their product and so I think we will see that conventional way of delivering games continue. While I do believe more people will use the internet and various devices to watch their favorite team’s games, I don’t see most fans really breaking away from watching games on a nice big screen TV with friends over…that sort of thing. Sports are a little different from scripted shows in how people have traditionally invested their time in them. Football is as much a social event as a spectator sport although other sports may have more of an iPad following if you will. It will probably depend on the individual. The great thing about the “Netflix” model is certain devices will let us watch what we want on normal TV screens rather than just relying on portable computers.

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:15:13 +0000

@Mike007 @larryphelps20 Yeah, they are just mortified…

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:11:55 +0000

@JRsec @mowens75 @larryphelps20 Only problem is that sorry sisters Ut and kU are pouting and will NOT play A&M or MU.

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:07:16 +0000

@mowens75 Not sure why…even if you count chickenhawks, there just are not enough cable households to offer them a split.

By: yerboyfloyd

yerboyfloyd — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:02:39 +0000

@FCDore Agreed. With UNC being the real plum, being proactive seems wiser than reactive.
The best case is to slam the breaks and prop up the ACC if at all possible.

By: Mike007

Mike007 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:32:42 +0000

@larryphelps20
That’s because UNC, Duke, and NC State are afraid of Kansas Basketball

By: Jesm

Jesm — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:19:20 +0000

@BonzaiB

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:10:01 +0000

@John at MrSEC
I stand corrected. Sorry for my mistake.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:40:55 +0000

@JRsec @larryphelps20 @mowens75 That doggone bowl record just won’t go away! When it comes to a la carte programming, I’m not sure that anyone in the entire world of sports would benefit. To some degree, all leagues both college and pro rely on bundled pricing to augment revenues. I can’t believe that the SEC would move into the arena if it believed that the model is on its death bed. Note, also, that video distributors count on marking-up sports programming to fuel their own profits. Fios just announced a “sports-free” sub package, but it’s only 15% cheaper than the regular bundle because it requires an HD up-sell. It seems that margins must be maintained one way or another.

Most Big Ten schools have fans statewide that are not necessarily affiliated with the school. I still remember covering the firing of Bob Knight back in my days as a local TV reporter. Talk about irate people! They were pulling up in their cars at Assembly Hall, throwing out IU merchandise, and flipping the bird to the building and whomever happened to be in it. Upon interviewing many of these people, I discovered that almost none of them had attended a single class at Indiana University or any other college. They were fans, just as they might be fans of the Indianapolis Colts.

My guess is that schools like Alabama and Georgia have plenty of those, too. Then again, the population shift is lending even further competitive advantage to southern schools. That said, I’m not a fan of the Big Ten expanding for the primary purpose of making recruiting inroads. It isn’t as if Purdue and Minnesota will become more attractive to Florida kids if FSU is in the conference.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:20:13 +0000

@Roggespierre @mowens75 @larryphelps20 Totally agree here. That’s why the Big 10 and SEC would be wise to look for new markets that fit their existing footprint if possible and so far both have done that, and look for brands that are strong, and the SEC scored the only one of those so far with A&M, and look also to consolidate their footprint with strong brands. Eventually the economy is going to hit us much harder than people realize. During the rebuilding years for the economy close games will bring in more revenue than those that require extensive travel, and rivalries will do the same. Cut travel expenses and you make more by saving more.

As long as the fit is right it’s time to hedge bets by doing a little of all of the above.

By: LifeLongGarnetGold

LifeLongGarnetGold — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:56:25 +0000

Thanks, John. Good points all. Would love the Noles to be in that “quartet’! Not giving up hope. Maybe Slive will “use” FSU to block the B1G from infiltrating the great state of Florida

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:54:40 +0000

@larryphelps20 @mowens75 Tennesse and Auburn won crystal footballs as well. Considering your overall bowl record I’d be careful of calling the rest of the SEC filler. And as far as alumni bases go nobody has enough to carry cable networks on an a la carte model. It requires compelling play to gain the others who have no connection to your school..

I’ve got nothing against the Big 10. I spent my early years decades ago in the great white North and loved the people there. In basketball you have no problems, I believe top to bottom you are the best basketball conference in the nation.

But, what I pointed out will not change. In my opinion if you were to go to 20 you would be wise to drop the AAU requirement and go after Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson. That would add meat and recruiting to your conference.

By: TheN8tureBoy

TheN8tureBoy — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:53:25 +0000

@John at MrSEC
TELL ME THE THIRD SATURDAY IN OCTOBER WILL BE OKAY!

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:32:03 +0000

@Seanbo

Good, rational thinking. Disagree on a couple of points, but I see where you’re coming from.

I did want to correct one misconception though. Each signing day for the past few years we’ve looked at where SEC schools get their talent… and more SEC signees come out of Georgia than Florida. That might seem surprising, but there’s a reason. There are two FBS schools in the Peach State (three with Georgia State moving up). Florida has UF, Florida State, Miami, UCF, USF, FAU, FIU. Florida has more overall FBS signees each year than Georgia, but Georgia produces enough that two (or even three) in-state schools can’t come close to inking them all. Sunshine State recruits can still stay in state and play FBS football even if the BCS schools turn them down. Georgia kids don’t have nearly as many in-state options.

Just clearing up a myth that we also believe… until running the numbers.

Thanks for reading the site,
John

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:21:06 +0000

@TheN8tureBoy

I think those two schools will fight for it tooth and nail and I think the SEC has been better than most leagues about protecting its biggest games. But the more schools get added, the more votes get cast. And them thar interlopers might not see the value of Alabama-Tennessee or Auburn-Georgia. At MrSEC, we also see value in Ole Miss-Vanderbilt as those two schools have one of the oldest rivalries in the league. Newbies won’t get that and won’t care. And the more folks who come in voting for themselves and not the greater good, the less chance of “greater good” games like the old rivalries surviving.

That’s actually a bigger concern overall that we’ll touch on later in the week, too. Don’t want to give it away just yet.

As always, thanks for reading the site,
John

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:14:17 +0000

@LifeLongGarnetGold

FSU would have been so much better off financially. But their reasons at the time made sense: Easier to dominate in football, better for the school’s academic reputation, carve out its own niche, etc.

And Florida has reasons today for not signing off on FSU like they did two decades ago. The SEC is the hottest league going. Why give that recruiting tool to a rival? The SEC makes filthy money (which wasn’t even the driving factor behind 80s-90s expansion). Why provide that kind of cash to a rival?

It’s a shame though. FSU would have been — and still would be — a perfect fit for the SEC. Florida, Georgia, FSU and Auburn would form one rough-and-tumble little quartet, you be sure of that.

All the best to your Seminoles.

Thanks for reading the site,
John

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:06:24 +0000

@Roggespierre @BonzaiB @larryphelps20 @mowens75

That’s a perfect example. A + B = C… unless there’s some hidden part of the equation that we don’t know about. In UConn’s case, the hidden part of the equation was Boston College. BC has fought hard to keep UConn out of the ACC in order to remain the league’s only New England team.

Now there are rumors that the Big Ten and Boston College are talking. Personally, I don’t believe those rumors. And if the two parties have talked, I’m guessing it was the small, Catholic, non-AAU school that was the party doing the dialing. Can’t see BC filling the Big Ten’s needs even with the Boston TV market.

So watch Jim Delany announce BC to the Big Ten tomorrow.

Thanks for reading the site,
John

By: LifeLongGarnetGold

LifeLongGarnetGold — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:04:54 +0000

Preach it! BTW, what school are you a fan of?

By: larryphelps20

larryphelps20 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:03:17 +0000

@JRsec @mowens75 I agree content matters and you’d be correct if (and this is a monstrous if) the B10 added BC, UCONN, Syracuse and/or Kansas. None of those would be smart additions IMO. That’s why if the B10 is adding some combination of: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, ND it would be a no brainer for them. One other thing…yes, the SEC is the dominant conference as of right now, but it’s because 3 programs are carrying all the load: Alabama, LSU and Florida. Sure Georgia is solid, but it’s not a world beater. The rest of the schools are just filler for those 3 to feast on.

The issue w/ the B10 not being able to compete w/ the SEC for national titles is that during this 7 year run by the SEC only Ohio St. is putting up much of a fight nationally speaking. The other “king” programs in the B10 (specifically Michigan and Penn St.) need to start pulling their weight for the conference to become competitive nationally.

One other thing in regards to markets/matchups. The other reason the B10 is so successful from a media rights $ perspective is the sheer number of B10 alumni that want that content. I’m an IU fan and our football team is dreadful. Arguably one of the worst BCS programs, but I’ll still watch and root for them wherever and whenever they’re on tv. Take the avg. B10 school’s enrollment…say 35k-40K and you start racking up staggering alumni figures pretty quickly.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:54:23 +0000

@John at MrSEC @BonzaiB @larryphelps20 @mowens75 Thanks to you for providing this forum and for spurring the discussion with your outstanding four part series.

And you’re right – we know nothing. I still can’t believe the ACC took Louisville. I thought that UConn was a lock. The only thing that mitigates my embarrassment is the fact that UConn apparently thought so, too.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:43:59 +0000

@JRsec @BonzaiB @I4Bama Do you believe that they’re thinking on such a macro level? I know that we fans often do that, but I’m not sure that the conferences and institutions go much beyond asking what is the best thing for us right now.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:40:01 +0000

@JRsec @mowens75 @larryphelps20 The issue of quality content is definitely one that is worthy of dispassionate debate. Like most topics here, it is multifaceted.

I’ll use myself as an example. I’m primarily a Big Ten fan, but I’m also a college football fan. In recent years, I have often opted to watch the top SEC game on CBS rather than a Big Ten game on ESPN because, quite simply, the quality of the SEC game was clearly better.

However, if I were to have to pay for each individual game, then I suspect that my viewing habits would change significantly. I’ll watch SEC games if they’re on a cable package that I’m already paying for, but I’m not going to pay to watch them a-la-cart. I am, after all, a Big Ten fan. If I have to pay a-la-cart, then it’s going to be for the teams that I really want to see.

Perhaps the NFL serves as the model. I’ve often wondered why the NFL chooses to sell the Sunday Ticket to DirecTV. Why doesn’t it offer every game a-la-cart on all cable systems. I can’t believe that Comcast, TW, Cox, Fios and Dish wouldn’t be interested. The answer must be that the NFL has figured out that it maximizes collective profits via its exclusive DirecTV deal. In other words, it can make more money selling all games as a package through one distributor than it could if it were to sell each game individually via multiple distributors. This is of course an assumption, but I think it’s a safe one given the NFL’s history of profit maximization.

The Big Ten has an advantage with regards to a-la-cart programming, namely its alumni. A Michigan fan might be a college football fan, too. But what will he pay to see? Michigan. Will he pay to watch LSU/Alabama? Maybe.

Without getting into it too deeply, there are reasons that conferences continue to put their 1st tier games on broadcast networks and established base tier cable channels like ESPN. If they could forward integrate into distribution 100% without losing viewership, then I would think they would do so. That’s true regardless of whether or not bundled pricing goes away.

The potential ramifications of a major shift in the profitability model of televised sports are virtually limitless.

By: LifeLongGarnetGold

LifeLongGarnetGold — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:35:01 +0000

Speaking of when we joined the financial big dog at the time some ”20 years ago”, I guess the shirt I had that said “Hey SEC, Kiss my ACC” has kinda backfired Sure hope we get a second chance.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:32:47 +0000

@Seanbo @larryphelps20 @mowens75 My point is a simple one. If the carriage fee model of cable networks changes to an on demand model either because of a la carte legislation or internet streaming then the Big 10′s network gets severely hamstrung. Obviously the Big 10 has some outstanding brands: Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Nebraska and to a lesser extent Michigan State. Of all of the possible targets you or others have mentioned only Florida State could successfully transition from a carriage fee model to an on demand model. Since you already own the other 6 brands in the Big 10 that would successfully make that transition my point stands. Who other than F.S.U. that you may or may not acquire moves the needle enough on football content to successfully make that change? You may wind up with very large markets, and a number of them, but how many people in Virginia, North Carolina, Atlanta (because it won’t apply in most of Georgia), New Jersey, and Maryland are going to pay to watch Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, or Michigan State other than alums? You will have large markets and no compelling product with which to deliver them. Admittedly Florida would be different if the Seminoles were your brand.

By the way cable subscriptions are down. That trend has peaked and is seeking its new trough. The economy is partially to blame, but internet streaming is beginning to take away points and that’s a trend that technology will increase. The paradigm is already shifting and the carriage fee model is not even in place. I sure don’t call that security!

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:22:57 +0000

@Seanbo @larryphelps20 @mowens75 The point is a simple one. Trends are showing a decline in cable subscriptions period. Part of that is the economy. But a good portion of it is beginning to be streaming. While that has not yet filtered into sports per se, it is nevertheless a trend that is nowhere near its peak. The Big 10 model is predicated upon carriage fees. Should a la carte, or internet technology change that model (and in time that is very likely) the whole model of the Big 10 gets hamstrung. Of the above teams you mentioned for possible Big 10 expansion only one could transition from a carriage fee model to an on demand model profitably for football and that’s F.S.U.. The Big 10 has some great brands for football. Obviously Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and to a lesser extent Michigan State are all very solid. But other than Florida State nothing that is being proposed moves the needle for football other than the Seminoles whom they may not land. In any kind of on demand system the Big 10 is suddenly limited to the outstanding demand of just 6 teams that they already possess. At that point my observation stands. What good is all of those markets with only limited content to show?

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:12:56 +0000

@BonzaiB @larryphelps20 @mowens75

Kind comments. Many thanks.

Guess it depends on what “knows” means. We do all know there are possibilities and that some of those appear more possible than others. But how it will all play out? Tough to predict.

Example: How close did Louisville come to swiping West Virginia’s spot in the Big XII simply because a current senator from Kentucky once worked with the University of Oklahoma’s president? Depends on who you talk to at Louisville, WVU and inside the Big XII. Still, a phone call from one guy to another threw an extra speedbump into the Big XII’s expansion project. Little relationships that like that can throw curves at everyone.

While our guesses are a bit more educated than some — at least we hope so — they’re still guesses. We realize that things change and that there are unknown, behind-the-scenes factors at play. But we try to take a logical, dispassionate view of these expansion stories and realignment possibilities (aside from saying we’re not for more expansion anywhere). For that reason, it’s always amusing to see folks write things like “We KNOW that School X won’t do this.” Well, being technical, we might think School X won’t do something… but none of us know for sure.

Thanks again. And thanks for reading the site,
John

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:58:40 +0000

@JRsec @larryphelps20 @mowens75

How valuable would the BTN be with Virginia (2 million cable subscribers), North Carolina and Duke (2.2 million), Georgia Tech (not sure how mch weight they carry), FSU (5,5 million) and Boston College (3.1 million). That 12.8 plus million subscribers at $1 dollar per month. 153.8 million plus on top of what they are making now