Comments on: FSU A.D. Spetman Talks Openly About Switching Conferences… And The SEC

By: JRsec

JRsec — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:10:03 +0000

KellyJones2 Bronxvillepeter Good for you KellyJones2 you beat me to it. 99% of those who post about academic fit have not one clue what they are talking about. F.S.U. was the second worst academic school in the ACC. There research spending is nowhere near AAU levels and their post graduate degree programs aren’t in line either. That said they are a solid school, but hardly elite.

By: KellyJones2

KellyJones2 — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:09:45 +0000

Bronxvillepeter, It depends on what FSU is looking for academically. If they want to be the worst house in the best neighborhood, then the BIG is best. Only Nebraska is ranked lower academically. In the SEC, they would be the nice house in the nice neighborhood. FSU’s ranking of 97 is tied for 7th best in the SEC with Missouri. They are exactly average academically in the SEC. Vandy, Florida, Georgia, TAMU, Alabama, and Auburn are ranked higher.
Fact check on basketball. In the last 20 years, the SEC has had 6 national champions among three different programs (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky). The BIG has had one (Michigan St. in 2000). In terms of championships, the ACC has been the best in recent history, and the SEC is neck and neck with the Big East. It is fine if you think FSU is a better fit, but saying the the SEC does not fit FSU academically and that they are consistently the worst basketball conference is untrue.

By: Bronxvillepeter

Bronxvillepeter — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:56:45 +0000

Big Ten makes the most sense for long term financial stability AND academics. FSU’s football reputation is elite. Joining the SEC would keep be a good money maker and a geographic fit, but a big step down academically and in basketball, where the SEC is consistently the worst basketball conference.
However joining The Big Ten will make FSU the most money, while bolstering both its academic reputation, and its basketball program.

By: Scott19

Scott19 — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:23:52 +0000

NIU brings with it the #3 TV market in the country… food for thought.

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:39:51 +0000

@JRsec @AllTideUp @local37220 I know some people on these boards just enjoy thinking up all these different expansion scenarios and tossing them out here. Who really knows what is going to happen with all this? Maryland and Rutgers to the B1G proved that. However I remember a few on these boards predicted it along with much that has not happened.

I have always pretty much been the same with my thinking though. I have little interest in playing or thinking up different scenarios. I think the SEC going beyond 16 will ultimately end up being a mistake. I hope the two SEC adds are FSU & Clemson. I guess the SEC would still ultimately benefit by adding VT & NCST. I feel anything outside or beyond that is a mistake for the SEC in the long run. Others do and can differ in their thinking. We shall all see in the next few years.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:59:58 +0000

@AllTideUp @local37220 @WarHog38 If we took those six all we could say at the end of the day is that we were richer (with funny money at that). If the Big 12 took F.S.U., Miami, Clemson, and Georgia Tech they would still have Virginia Tech and N.C. State on the table. Lousiville and Cincinnati could make 18 for them and B.Y.U. and Colorado State could take them to 20 with a fairly nice set up for a Network of their own should they one day desire one. The sad thing is we would get 6 swanky basketball loving anomalies and they would get all of the football brands. I call that ………….disgusting.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:52:18 +0000

@JRsec @local37220 @WarHog38
The tax break angle is interesting. I’ve wondered if ESPN might be a little more interested in encouraging someone to take UConn that otherwise might not be thinking of it. If they promise higher payouts because of it then they might get a league to bite. I would think the Big 12 could be in that list as well. There really is no model Big 12 school anymore so I guess it’s a possibility.

The strange thing about the SEC making that sort of move, assuming Syracuse comes along, is that it would provide the SEC the very thing that the B1G covets and that is direct access to the NY market. If Syracuse is aboard and what I’ve heard about fan support in NYC is true then the SEC Network could get full sub rates up there and garner a fair bit of interest from both SU and UConn fans. Truly wild. CT isn’t that big of a market, but if it helped secure sub rates in NYC it would be worth every penny. Still not sure it would be a good idea in the grand scheme of things though.

I hate that these discussion are being reduced to dollars and cents. I wish it was all about regional flavor and cultural identification, but I guess you might as well try to win at whatever game is being played. The world is definitely turning upside down. I should have a long life to live yet so who knows how crazy it will get…

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:49:27 +0000

@JRsec You do not want to get me talking politics on this board again? As you know I am farther out there in right field than you are. I am sticking to sports on here for everyone’s sake!

By: JRsec

JRsec — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:28:22 +0000

@AllTideUp @local37220 @WarHog38 As the story goes the State of Connecticut is in a position to grant a significant tax break to the corporate headquarters of ESPN (Bristol, CT) if they help get the state university into a good conference. Is it true? I don’t know but states do get involved when one of their universities could be left out of a great subsidy like television revenue in the SEC or Big 10. Since ESPN and the Big 10 aren’t on the best of terms these days that leaves us.

The Idea of Syracuse, Pitt and UConn is only interesting to me from one perspective. They would negate any Big 10 advantages in markets over the SEC by a move South. They would also give the SEC essentially the entire footprint of the ACC for the cost of 6 schools. Just swap UConn for B.C. and you’ve got it. Syracuse is only recently out of AAU. Pitt is in, and UConn could be a candidate. F.S.U., Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami would be left for the Big 12 who could also add Cincinnati and Louisville for four fairly nice divisions. We would be essentially swapping the ACC as a fellow conference in the Southeast for the Big 12. Not a lot of difference in my opinion. If it kept the Big 10 at bay it wold be worth it I suppose.

As for the world we live in. Ignorance is in and reason is out. Money has no real backing and therefore little real value except for the might of our military. Christians are seen as intolerant bigots who are legislated against and crime and immorality are accepted as normal. Our spy drones are turned on us and our borders are wide open. So in light of those shifts in reality of course U Conn should be in the SEC! I’m getting too old buddy. My wife left handwritten instructions for a graduate student the other day. The student couldn’t read cursive, but was getting a PHD. The world is truly turned upside down.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:12:38 +0000

@JRsec @local37220 @WarHog38
I heard a random Twitter rumor that suggested the SEC was interested in UConn. I never knew where it came from though. Interesting that you heard it as well. I don’t have any idea what to make of it, but I would expect to hear some more solid chatter from Mr. SEC and some others before I really bought into it. Who knows? How does the tax break for ESPN work? I hadn’t heard of that.

It’s kind of a catch 22 situation as to whether it would be a good idea. The B1G is in a good position right now because there are so many strong programs in the sun belt…programs outside the current footprint. The SEC is a little hindered though because the B1G pretty much controls every program worth having North of the Mason-Dixon. There are a handful of exceptions to that rule and UConn would probably be highest on the list as far as strong college athletic programs go. Pittsburgh might be another. Syracuse is somewhat intriguing, but it’s also a private school. For the most part it looks like the SEC is doing the logical thing and fighting to get into the nearby states they don’t already access…NC and VA. Outside of those states, the SEC is going to have to go way out of their comfort zone to land a program worth having. Are they willing to do it and would such a move hurt the common culture of the conference? I don’t know.

I’m not sure snagging up those 3 would help land UNC, Duke, and UVA. The lacrosse angle is an interesting one, but I don’t know how much that would weigh in the decision making. The SEC would have to be sure that that move would pay off in and of itself. If the UNC, Duke, and UVA trio didn’t bite then VT, NC State, and Florida State would still complete a nice expansion, but it would be odd. There’s always the benefit of the added basketball even if the move didn’t work out exactly as planned. It would certainly be bold. I would have to give them that. And I suppose stranger things have happened. The ACC, then a Southern conference, grabbed BC and tried to get Syracuse the first time around. The B1G, the great Northern conference, is looking South. It’s a wild world we’re living in.

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:37:21 +0000

@AllTideUp @local37220 @JRsec The Pacific 12 refused Texas, TT, OU & OSU because of the LHN, Scott publicly said so. OU and OSU were refused by the Pac 12 as a twosome. I guess no one knows if Oklahoma would have been accepted by themselves? It has been rumored the SEC refused Oklahoma because OSU was attached to the deal. Now you add that GOR that lasts another 12 years. This all makes the Big 12 look pretty blame stable to me for next few years. Maybe Kansas to the B1G?
Now the ACC. Of course we all know about Maryland. It has been reported that ACC schools refused Swofford over and over on a Big 12 style GOR. You have a once boisterous bunch of pro ACC school administrators who all are now mum. The ACC school administrators who do now speak talk of an out for their respective schools if needed. FSU is a cog that can not be lost to the ACC and FSU looks shaky in the ACC at best. The future SEC and current B1G TV Network look like a sure killer to the ACC in the next several years. Long before that Big 12 GOR starts to weaken.

I do not really understand the comparisons I see on this board comparing the Big 12 and ACC. I understood why those ACC people could not figure it out when I posted this on their boards. They did not want to!

i failed to mention that SEC-B12 Sugar Bowl that Slive set up. That further strengthened the B12 to a huge degree!

By: JRsec

JRsec — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:12:14 +0000

@AllTideUp @local37220 @WarHog38 I agree a 20 team SEC could last a long time. Here are my reasons. 1. It is one of the two top (I believe the top) destinations for all upper tier schools. When a team gets in they are not going to be chomping at the bit to leave the summit. 2. The divisions, and there will be four of them will be regional, more regional than forming a new conference could be. 3. The money will be too good in uncertain times, and still hard to beat in good ones. 4. Once things are set there won’t be a lot of jostling this time. Since all games will be contained in the upper tier there is not going to be a competitive advantage to be gained by moving.

That’s why it is so totally important to get it right. There won’t be any do overs. I’m afraid that whoever marries us it will be till death we do part.

An aside for AllTideUp. Have you heard any speculation about taking in Syracuse, Pittsburgh, UConn, Virginia, Duke, and North Carolina? I figure it’s an homage to lacrosse to try to drive the final nail in acquiring Virginia, Duke, and U.N.C.. It takes 6 to form a Lacrosse conference. I also wondered in N.D. was lurking in back of those rumors. I’m afraid I would puke!

I’m hoping for six Southeastern teams and have lost all interest in a sprawling conference of new markets. Virginia, Virginia Tech, N. Carolina, N.C. State, Florida State & Clemson would suit me just fine. Duke would do well to join the Ivy League, seriously. If the Big 12 wants to grow to a minimum of 16 maybe they can stick around and take 6 of these ACC schools if that is what is going to happen. By the way the rumor of the aforementioned was a misread by Connecticut folks from a NY Times article. But since then I have learned that ESPN could land a whopping tax break in Connecticut in exchange for encouraging a large conference to pick up UConn. Now I’m not sure I can believe this, but it is an odd angle for sure. Without the ACC who would take them? And what other conference would the Corporate Mouse have leverage with? What are you hearing?

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 03:28:18 +0000

@local37220 @JRsec @WarHog38
I agree that those 6 schools are linked together and somehow or other all 6 are going to have to be guaranteed a safe home before that league could ever break up. Actually, that’s why I think the Big 12 is going to endure until at least the GOR is up because it won’t be easy to guarantee all 6 a safe home at the same time. Other than WVU, the rest of the schools don’t have the reasonable expectation of a home so they’ll stick around as long as the big boys do. Also, I think the Big 12 is going to benefit from an ACC breakup so there will be greater potential for that league to grow.

I think you’ll see a 16-20 team SEC last for a long time because of the money. The WAC never had any sort of financial or academic underpinnings. It was never anything more than a union of convenience. Once it became inconvenient, there was no reason to keep it together.

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:52:28 +0000

@local37220 I think the scenario you stated in the second paragraph of your comment is logical and therefore highly possible in the near future for any 18 & 20 team conference.
I’ll add this as reinforcement to the last sentence of your comment. What tradition do the possible SEC break-away schools you stated have with FSU, Clemson, NC State, Va. Tech, WVU and Duke/Pitt? Beyond those which are presently in state rivals? They will never establish traditions in a 20 school SEC either. There is too much distance and they will rarely play each other in that big of a league. What you state is the more than likely conclusion to the whole boondoggle.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:39:45 +0000

@local37220 @WarHog38 While Duke, Pitt or N.C. State could be divisive from an earnings standpoint, or as cultural fit, I doubt you would find many problems with Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech, or West Virginia. Plus the 4 division system essentially reinforces regionalism and acts as mini conferences within the conference.

As for the SEC not taking pairs that would be true for the Oklahoma and Kansas schools, but Texas & Texas Tech would still be a money maker in a state of such scope and 26 million viewers.

The GOR and Big 12 may both be dissolved by a vote of 8 members of the Big 12. So if the PAC wanted to take those six you mentioned then the other conferences would only have to account for 2 more of the remaining 4 to make it happen now. Baylor and TCU have value for adding the Dallas / Ft. Worth market to somebody’s conference and West Virginia should at this stage of the game find a new home in either the ACC or SEC. It’s doable now.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:33:39 +0000

@local37220 @WarHog38 You make a good point about Duke, Pitt, and N.C. State. But F.S.U., Clemson, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia probably would bring about such a response. Besides the new divisions will essentially become small regional conferences within a conference. Also Texas could get into the SEC even with tag along Tech. The money still works for a state of 26 million. Oklahoma and Kansas don’t carry enough clout to pull it off. And I have never understood the prejudice against T.C.U. and Baylor for the PAC. They are not overtly, narrow minded, religious schools. They just offer a discipline for religious studies and have seminaries which are quite separate from their other studies and make no demands upon the academic freedom of the other disciplines.

Also, remember that it only takes 8 voting members of the Big 12 to dissolve the conference and void the GOR. You don’t have to wait 12 years. If the PAC took Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to move to 18. They could be dissolved if another conference to two of the remaining 4. Baylor and T.C.U. would have worth for the Dallas Ft. Worth market and West Virginia would land either in the ACC or SEC. It’s doable now.

By: local37220

local37220 — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:16:11 +0000

@JRsec @WarHog38 Interesting thoughts on the fits (or lack thereof outside of FSU and Clemson). It became apparent a few years ago that the Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas legislatures are not going to split their flagship/state schools unless both schools with each state have equally soft landing spots. I do not see any way that the SEC or BIG adds Texas Tech, Kansas State, or Oklahoma State just to get big brother, nor do I see the PAC only taking little brother without the flagship. The obvious play is the PAC taking all 6 of those schools when the GoR expires and going immediately to 18. They could do worse than Baylor and TCU to get to 20 if they needed (as always, Iowa State is left in the cold).

The SEC needs to tread very lightly with these latest additions, or they could face the same demise as the WAC. If we get to 20 teams by adding FSU, Clemson, NC State, Va.Tech, WVU, and a Duke/Pitt, I can understand the big boys (UF, UA, USC, UGA, UT, UK, LSU, Ark., TAMU and probably Auburn) wanting to split and immediately increase their revenue shares by a good chunk. Without an exit fee (which I believe is the best part of the SEC when things are going well), there is not much to stop such a move except tradition and perception.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:57:43 +0000

@WarHog38 I agree that F.S.U. and Clemson are the best two fits, but we seem bent to add new markets. The ACC schools in Virginia and North Carolina have divided fan bases and political pressures. The academicians want the Northern schools, but many of those who help to write their checks (private and political) don’t. 100 years of Northern influence has warped them into something not wholly Southern, but not Northern either. Texas is one of those rivals that would add value to the SEC. The two Oklahoma’s are not a great cultural match, but they don’t fit in very well anywhere else either.

If the ACC survives, and I think it will, the point is moot anyway. But there are 4 conference that have an interest in the demise of the Big 12 and the Big 12 is surrounded on three sides by three of them. They are the turkey that has to be carved if we are going to move to any kind of resolution to 4 chairs at the championship table. We’ll see.

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:26:51 +0000

@JRsec I fully agree with your first paragraph. However I do not feel the SEC has nearly as many brand matches and cultural fits as you stated later in your comment.

Oklahoma and the Longhorns do not match the SEC culturally at all. Oklahoma has the culture of Indian territory, still clearly visible in 2013. UT and the whole state of Texas is oil rich far beyond the scope of any southern state. East Texas Texas A&M is the only match and the SEC got them. Those Virginia and North Carolina schools do not want the SEC. They prefer ACC to all, the B1G secondly.

FSU and Clemson are cultural and brand fits for the SEC. Those are the only two. NCST might shake out as a torn Missouri type fit. UNC, UVA, VT, OU, OSU and Texas will all make Missouri look like SEC sweethearts.

It does not matter what you or I or these many posters write. This is all about money. I think nothing else much matters. The proof or test will be the longevity of these makeshift conferences. I do not think an 18 or 20 team conference sprawled out over 2/3 of the country will have the shelf life of a can of tomatoes.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:20 +0000

@BobbyandBear @Roggespierre @LifeLongGarnetGold @AllTideUp At some point Delany and Slive need to realize that they may add valuable markets for networks by expanding into areas that are not native to us, taking teams that do not fit our cultural and athletic profiles, and adding others that fit a niche sports need, but that by doing so they may lose a great deal as well. Both the Big 10 and SEC are what they are because they have owned their region and brand. Both of them have strong fan identification because of it. And both of them are about to weaken the very identification with their fans that have made them so successful. Texas A&M didn’t ripple that support for the SEC. Penn State didn’t ripple that support for the Big 10. Missouri made SEC fans uneasy. Rutgers and Maryland flat ticked off some Big 10 fans.

Many of us may not clearly understand the harm that come through loss of brand and fit in expansion. Those new large markets look like low hanging million dollar fruit. But in reality the best way for the SEC to hang onto its value is by monopolizing the best brand in college football. How? By expanding within our culture and by taking the remaining few teams that would give our brand a monopoly of those kinds of teams.
Florida State, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and a little bit of a reach for West Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State (or North Carolina) would be tolerated. That’s 9 teams out of which we could build a uniquely branded and ultimately valuable SEC with six of them.

Clemson and F.S.U. lock down the brand in the existing region. That should happen for just that reason. Then for the remaining four spots you go for fit and new markets. In order of value that would be Texas, one of North Carolina preferred or a settle for N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and then either an Oklahoma School or West Virginia. That’s still very regional, extremely brand conscious, and culturally compatible (except for an occasional burning sofa).

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:28:55 +0000

For the FSU AD to be making public statements as this concerning a rival conference fully shows the dire predicament that the ACC is now in. This is the exact kind of public statements the Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Missouri AD’s made before their respective schools entered the SEC. Is FSU getting ready to enter the SEC? These kind of public statements makes it look like FSU sure has something cooked up or are badly trying to do so. Swofford must of about had a coronary when he heard this.

When or if FSU leaves the ACC it will be finished as a football conference. Clemson, VT and NCST will all know it and will look to escape at any good opportunity. I see you SEC’ers took care of one of those disillusioned ACC people further down on the board. These people care very little about football. Their basketball and scholastic fans. I think they resent the SEC as much as they love the ACC. Oh well, I was pounded with Talisman’s Folly type thinking until I withdrew from their boards.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:16:36 +0000

@Matthew James Conceivably, the SEC could charge nominally more for a network because both UF and FSU fans are highly interested. But, I’d doubt that this number would be considerably different than they could get with UF and FSU in the same divisions but all fans clamoring for the station. So, sure, I’d guess that it might be a little more but not enough to pay FSU’s way like adding the state of Virginia would pay Virginia Tech’s share.

By: Matthew James

Matthew James — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:39:19 +0000

@DanHogan Do you feel the SEC could get away with charging $x for access to one division and $x+$y for the complete conference?

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:58:09 +0000

@Seanbo @JansonRoberts Seanbo, I think you are correct about the number and the strategy. 3 conferences of between 20 to 24 will net each member team close to 2 million more by eliminating the 4th conference (a little more if 60 total teams and a little less if more). I do believe that taking F.S.U. is the key to raiding the ACC and have stated that from the beginning. The Orange Bowl money and the option to make the 4 team playoff are what is propping the ACC income up now. Lose your top football brand (and likely then Clemson) and the run is on. I also think Slive will do what it takes to get U.N.C. and that will mean taking N.C. State as well. I don’t think the Big 10 will really take F.S.U., especially since Miami may be the next to be voted into AAU. If Delany really wants into Florida he will go to the only destination that has Big 10 connections (Donna Shalala, and the non-Hispanic population of the Miami greater area. The logic will be the same as with Maryland who also could not fill their stadium.

So if the Big 10 doesn’t take F.S.U. then the SEC will have to in order to create the environment in which Virginia Tech, and U.N.C. may be had. If the overall plan is to stop then they will add N.C. State and 18 will be our number. 18 has some interesting advantages and is still way easier to schedule than 14. But I don’t believe this ends at 18. I think you are dead on in believing that the last two spots to 20 will be reserved for Texas and Oklahoma. I also think that West Virginia and Clemson would make a very nice pair of substitutes.

I think in the end Texas will go where ever they take the most of their Big 12 buddies with them. I have a feeling that Oklahoma will have to can Stoops before they willingly come to the SEC. If they don’t Ohio born and bred Stoops will take his Sooners to the Big 10. They may not be AAU but are certainly every bit as academically fit as Nebraska.

Finally, I’ll be interested to see if the SEC will take anyone that ESPN may wish to hold onto. If the Maryland case upholds the exit fee then I think eventually Texas and a few friends may move to the ACC and SEC. ESPN will protect their best Big 12 brands by seeing them move to the ACC and SEC. If the Maryland case fails to uphold the fee then the SEC will likely get the best brands from the ACC because that is what ESPN will want.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:37:01 +0000

@Seanbo @JRsec @JansonRoberts I’m not so sure that any conference that takes UNC will be going to 16. The B1G could (and I hope will) stop at just UVA and UNC. The SEC could offer UNC/VT or UNC/NC St, or UNC/FSU even. My guess is B12 will eventually have FSU/Clem, B1G will have UVA/UNC, and SEC will have NC St and VT. No one more than 16.

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:36:23 +0000

@JRsec @JansonRoberts
If the SEC expands, I think they go to 18. I do not see Pitt or GT being in the plans. I think the SEC goes to 20 once the Big XII’s Grant of Rights expire in 2026 then I see Texas coming over with Oklahoma. If Texas or Oklahoma goes else where in 2026, then I see West Virginia as replacement 1 and Clemson as back up # 2.

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:22:41 +0000

@JRsec@JansonRoberts
There are only 2 schools that can kill the ACC and that’s FSU and UNC. If the ACC keeps them then it survives, if not the ACC becomes the old Big East. UNC does not want to leave, so for the ACC to implode then either the B1G or the SEC has to take FSU. Once that happens then they can fight over UNC. Whoever gets UNC will be expanding to 18. The B1G grabbing Virginia and GT does not affect what FSU and UNC do.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 02:16:25 +0000

@JansonRoberts I think that is exactly correct. So following your line of reasoning which would it be? 18 or 20 And if 18 is it Florida State, North Carolina, N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Or is it 20 with Florida State, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson and ? (Virginia, Pitt, West Virginia, or Georgia Tech) or Florida State, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech and ? (Pitt, Clemson, West Virginia, or Georgia Tech).

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 01:54:30 +0000

The ACC will not implode tomorrow even if UVA and Ga. Tech were to annouce they were leaving for the B1G. The current political landscape in the ACC of course is weak but don’t belive that it will crumble with 2 more defections. And while I can understand that FSU would not add much value in regards to adding any new footprint in and of itself, after reading what Spetman has said, I can see that Spetman may be going on record that FSU is in a position of bringing value to the SEC…….value in bringing the 2 states that the SEC is wanting to add to its footprint, Virginia and North Carolina. It is going to take the defection of more than UVA and Ga Tech to bring the ACC to a boil. FSU could be the catalyst. Question is, after UVA and Tech go, would FSU be enough or would it take FSU and Clemson to topple the conferecne. How badly does the SEC want the states of Virginia and North Carolina? Seriously consider the politics of the North Carolina University system. Duke is not a factor. We are talking UNC and NCST. UNC will not be leaving until it is clear that the ACC is finished . NCST can’t go anywhere until UNC reaches out. Only way it will happen will be for the ACC to topple. We are not going to see FSU leaving for the Big 12 or B1G unless the implosion comes from a different front. There are no other realistic fronts that makes better cents (sense). Spetman seems to be laying the path for what FSU would rather have. The value of FSU to the SEC may be far more complex than adding a new tv market or adding to the network footprint, if in fact FSU is the pathway to bringing the SEC the 2 states it is wanting so badly.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 03:08:18 +0000

@ppbrittain @RT77 I don’t think the AAU thing has been exaggerated as much as it has been misrepresented. Big Ten presidents don’t demand that members show up on that AAU website until they’ll be associated with them. I think it is more like they demand that member schools be solid academically (the measurement of such a thing can be debated) and solid research institutions. Under the vast majority of cases, schools that fit this mode are AAU members because of their academics and research. Notre Dame is an exception because it has very high academics and has just recently increased its research. I recently compared Notre Dame with other schools across the country using the probably-not-exact-but-close-enough data on Wikipedia to find that they’d rank something like 3rd or 4th in the Big Ten. I read a quote from the Notre Dame president stating that they’d like an AAU invitation but none has been in the offering yet.

If you look at the full listing of schools’ research endowments for all schools nationally, and look down the list until you see schools that could conceivably fit in the Big Ten, among the first ones you see are UNC, UVA, and Georgia Tech. I’d suspect a similar academic list might just yield the same results. I’d even wonder if “AAU” isn’t the right metric because.. well.. it isn’t stringent enough. But it is an easy to look-up parameter for even non-professionals like all of us to find so it helps us understand who might be in and who out.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:53:42 +0000

@Matthew James A very interesting point re splitting the in-state rivals and its impact on interest level. There’s one problem though. Increasing interest doesn’t necessarily increase revenue. Assuming the SEC maintains its incredibly high level of play, I dare to say tier 1 revenue can’t go any higher based on interest level — because the interest level is already sky high. Now, in the event that cycles continue to.. well.. cycle, split divisions could keep interest levels up in Alabama, Florida, and SC and revenue levels up as well. The tier 2 level is sky high as well (both interest and revenue) to the point that new members that have quality football would push still high quality games down into tier 3. But, in the event that the SEC drops just a bit — we are talking about a 50-year view here — protecting tier 2 quality through interest in divisional races would be of some value. The problem is the subscriber model that will be in place at the tier 3 level — where your idea would help increase interest the most — just plain doesn’t work this way. Fans will demand that carriers give them their SEC Network regardless of the interest level that they have in any individual game. Now, if the subscriber model morphs into something that more closely matches day-to-day viewership, or the model more depends on advertisements than subscriber fees, then this would help a lot.

The problem is your idea quite likely increases the number of games that viewers in those states will be interested in, it doesn’t really translate into higher tv revenues. At least not while the conference is so strong.

By: Matthew James

Matthew James — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:51:40 +0000

There are a lot of great points here. By extending invitations to FSU and Clemson and arranging the divisions so common state schools are in separate divisions (FSU/UF, Clemson/USCe, Alabama/Auburn and etc.) and having each common state school keep their instate rivalries would, in my opinion, increase interest and revenue for the SEC. For an example, I would expect viewership in Florida to increase for West Division games for games other than UF vs ___ or Alabama vs. LSU. Anyone who has attend FSU, Clemson and a full slate of SEC games know FSU and Clemson are more of an SEC culture than let’s say a Kentucky or Vanderbilt. Both fan bases travel well and will easily sellout all home games. I hope FSU and Clemson are invited into the SEC for the good of all.

By: ezgame

ezgame — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:14:52 +0000

@ppbrittain FSU would hold its own, if invited to BIG.
Not sure either, I think if University Presidents are truly banding together to exclude a potential memeber just because of gamesmanship or something petty… They’re doing their conference, University & position a dis-service. People make mistakes, hopefully others can compensate?
True. Sometimes I wonder how big or how many should be within a conference?

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:34:28 +0000

@BobbyandBear @Roggespierre @LifeLongGarnetGold @JRsec
Wow, that is a tough schedule to get excited about. I didn’t realize it was that bad.

By: LVNole

LVNole — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:34:25 +0000

@LifeLongGarnetGold @AllTideUp @Roggespierre Amen brother. I’ve been haunted by this ill-fated decision for over two decades now but am eternally hopeful that FSU will get an SEC invite. Joining one of the Big whatever conferences has zero appeal

By: ppbrittain

ppbrittain — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:34:26 +0000

@ezgame Yeah, there’s no doubt they would have bent the rules for ND. I don’t mean to disparage FSU as an academic institution but the B1G does take its academic profile seriously. I’m not sure that FSU is a match for that.

I guess the questions are: does the gentlemen’s agreement with UF, UGA and SC stand with regards to their instate rivals (if it was ever real)? Also, wouldn’t adding UNC and VPI do much more in terms of adding households for Project X? It will be interesting to see what happens.

By: ppbrittain

ppbrittain — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:27:35 +0000

@Seanbo Perhaps, but at least the B1G had plausible deniability.

By: ppbrittain

ppbrittain — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:27:18 +0000

@RT77 That’s an interesting take. The only reason I keep going back to it is that when Mizzou and B1G were sniffing around, much was made of the AAU requirement. So, fortunately, Delaney took the Bugeaters who went in as junior members an Mizzou entered the SEC as a fully vested member of the SEC from day one.

By: RT77

RT77 — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 04:15:41 +0000

@ppbrittain
I’m a college professor. The AAU angle is Greatly exaggerated. The Truth is that every school in that conference, with the exception of Northwestern, would much rather have another 5 million/yr than any manufactured air of academic superiority resulting from AAU purity in its membership.

By: ezgame

ezgame — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 02:56:20 +0000

@ppbrittain
Notre Dame didn’t have AAU status, yet they got a Big10 invite in 1998-2000 timeframe.
I see the AAU status as more like fast tracking or highlighting universities towards Big10 membership. Its not a sacred cow, just strongly emphasized or desired.

By: ezgame

ezgame — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:44:16 +0000

This quote from Spetman almost killed me, “It would be great to be in the SEC”…. wait for it. wait. wait.
.
WWWwwwwhhhaaaaaaaat? … I need the Etrade Baby jif doing his, “Here’s my shocked face…. whaaat!”

By: ezgame

ezgame — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:31:23 +0000

Good write-up MrSEC… I think you’ve capture the essence of FSU’s delima, especially this part.
.
“It’s not done, Spetman said regarding realignment. I watch it every day (me too.), reading something about it every day (me too!), trying to get a sense and calling my counterparts (braggard.) and seeing where they’re really at (I just got fellow bloggers?).” Spetman also said FSU brass have, “had conversations at the senior level about what we should consider.” He added: “There will be more of those conversations — they’ll continue. It’s an evolution every day.” ACC commissioner John Swofford must love reading that.”
.
Is it wrong to secretly enjoy others hypothetical sufferage? Then plot their ultimate downfall, like playing the game Risk?

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:02:40 +0000

@ezgame @Seanbo Never bet your house on the talent, focus, and testosterone levels of 18 to 24 year old males! But I get your point.

By: ezgame

ezgame — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:59:41 +0000

@Seanbo If a conference really, really, really, really, REALLY wants someone… They’ll get them. Question is, how much did they have to give up, in order to get them?
If the SEC Presidents thought… IDK, Montana State? was the key to increasing their own revenue by infinity. You can bet your house & mine that all the SEC Presidents (and Slive too) would be wining & dining Montana State’s President & B.O.Ds something serious.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:55:47 +0000

@Seanbo @JRsec That’s a good point, and I certainly won’t argue that pro football isn’t more popular than college football in the north.

On a slightly different but related note, I find the differences from pro market to pro market very interesting. Of course schools like Auburn, Alabama and South Carolina are the most popular sports properties in their respective states. But that’s true of big college teams in all small and sparsely populated states that lack professional teams – Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc. It’s not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the SEC.

But why is it that George, Florida and Ohio State are all more popular than the professional sports teams in their home states? I suppose the reasons are different from state to state. The Bengals and Browns have combined to win zero Super Bowls. The Falcons have a history of mediocrity. The pro teams in Florida share a state that’s really three different states in a cultural sense – Jacksonville Southern, Tampa Midwestern, and Miami Northeastern.

Then again, how do we explain the fact that the Saints get better TV ratings in Louisiana than LSU? The Cowboys are by far the most popular team in Texas. For that matter, they’re also the most popular sports team in Arkansas.

Why are these states so different? I really have no idea.

By: ezgame

ezgame — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:49:21 +0000

@Seanbo @JRsec @Roggespierre IMHO, I too think its about subscribers. Disagree that one conference could monopolize a region, because the population is diverse. Meaning, how many Bama & Auburn fans make-up that state’s population? I’d guess 60-70%, and the remaining fans are not interested or root for maybe SCar, or maybe transplanted from Oregon… IDK? Plus, how many can afford cable? They may just have a converter box or antenii up? The percentages go down as you look harder at whom has what, where & why? Bottom line…it isn’t 100% of Alabama’s population that may supports an SEC Network?
.
IMHO, if a conference can get $2, $3 or $4 per subscriber… they’re doing good. Cash in, exit stageright.

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:34:01 +0000

@JRsec @Roggespierre
Consider this. The North is pro football oriented while the South is college oriented. The SEC having monopoly in the South could lead to the SEC being able to get $2, $3 or $4 per cable subscriber while the B1G may only be able to charge half that because they are competing with the pros.

Cable companies in Alabama better carry the SEC network because of Alabama and Auburn fans will demand it, same in North Carolina if the SEC had UNC and Duke. In Pennsylvania, who is more popular the Steelers and Eagles or Penn State. In Illinois, the Illini and Northwestern or da Bears, in Wisconsin, the Badgers or the Packers. You can go on and on with this.

The bottom line is the SEC can charge more for its product than the B1G can especailly if the SEC has no other conferences to compete against.

By: BobbyandBear

BobbyandBear — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:00:52 +0000

@Roggespierre @LifeLongGarnetGold @JRsec @AllTideUp It’s a complicated issue, but money and frustration are fueling the push for FSU to leave the ACC. Here are my thoughts as a low level, lifelong FSU fan. First, there are two separate trains of FSU thoughts. The academics, including FSU’s President, like the ACC for its academic prestige and certainly would not object to the B1G if the AAU issue can be overcome. They would not be as happy with the SEC. The athletics side and the fans want the SEC, then anyone but the ACC. There are many years of frustration with the ACC leadership due to its basketball first philosophy, perceived bias against FSU particularly with football officiating, alleged poor TV negotiations with extreme favoritism shown to Jefferson Pilot resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in revenue, and the increasing payout discrepancy between the haves (SEC and B1G) and the have nots (ACC). At the same time, moving to the B1G or Big 12 presents its own set of problems – a potential $50 million exit fee, lack of natural sports rivals, and travel costs primarily.

My impression is that FSU is now officially ready to move regardless of these problems, or Spetman would not have been authorized to make these statements, and that the athletic side that favors moving to the SEC is currently prevailing. Spetman was basically begging the SEC to make an offer to FSU. I’m all for that. We certainly should be begging, groveling, pleading, apologizing, and offering blowjobs and PIITB if that’s what it would take. Sometimes you just have to take one for the team. Bobby made a huge mistake 20 years ago trying to take the easy road and we’ve paid for it ever since. Hopefully we can learn from that mistake and fix it. I think the other reason Spetman was allowed to make these comments was to provide a final shot across the ACC’s bow, just in case previous comments and Maryland’s defection hadn’t gotten their attention. They may be able to keep FSU, but major changes are going to be required. IMHO, these would include firing Swofford, bringing Notre Dame in as a full member, completely revamping the football officiating, and renegotiating the TV contracts to something comparable to the SEC and B1G. I really don’t see that happening. Hopefully 41 million TV viewers would offer enough value to the SEC for them to consider us once again.

By: BobbyandBear

BobbyandBear — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:31:55 +0000

@torris187 @local37220 @kelticreid Torris makes an excellent point. The folks that say having one school in a state locks up the TV market have no understanding of southern fans. I love college football, so I watch most of the important games from around the country each weekend. However, as an FSU fan, I will watch one or maybe two big Florida football games a year (Florida-Georgia for example), but only so long as the lizards are losing. Other than that, you couldn’t pay me to watch those future handbags and boots play any sport against any opponent. I imagine Florida fans feel the same way about FSU, as do Alabama and Auburn fans, etc. If you truly want to count my TV set as a revenue source and lock up the Florida TV market, you better understand that simple fact.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:59:20 +0000

@Seanbo @Roggespierre Exactly! That is what I meant by Clemson and F.S.U. being SEC like teams. If the Big 10 expands into the South without SEC like teams it ultimately gains them markets, but does nothing to upset the SEC’s hold on quality Southeastern football. Give them up to a conference that can pump cash into them and it becomes another matter.

The best leverage the SEC will have when realignment is over is its power football product. The more of that they own the more the networks have to listen to the SEC’s demands. Lose that hold over SE power football teams and the SEC loses its leverage. When the networks started rewarding the footprint model they were setting up all of these conferences for loss of regional leverage. It’s a smart ploy by the networks. Who in their right mind believe that the networks will continue to pay three different conferences full coverage of a state in which each of them have one team. They won’t. I said over a year ago on this site that there would be an eventual switch to a saturation model and divided states will be forced to divide the total market of the state by their team’s ratings share. The networks are going to pay for North Carolina, Texas, and Florida three different times. They wanted to split the larger states to get their future overhead down. Conference commissioners, even the best ones, have their roots in television contracts. They think in terms of the networks. Delany was very bright to see that the only way to stabilize his revenue stream was to own his own production capabilities. The SEC will only get weaker by allowing the networks to break up its control over its own region of the country. Monopolize the South and you will never lose your leverage. Allow others to grow product down here, especially if we fail to expand North, and we will eventually only lose leverage and income. Bank on it. You play chess 5 moves out and you are a winner. You play it a few more moves out and you are a champion. Most players think 2 and 3 moves out. The footprint model is in the 2nd and 3rd permutation of thinking and the networks are at 5 moves on us. They are looking at essentially the hostile takeover of an undervalued product. Legislation and regulations will eventually close the window for conferences to own and market their own product. When that happens watch out. F.S.U. and Clemson may not pay us now, but they will later. Add to them U.N.C., Virginia Tech, N.C. State, and possibly Georgia Tech and we will be calling our own shots 20 years from now if Washington politics and the Fed practices haven’t destroyed the nation.

Expansion in the South to 24 if it involves Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Kansas would still be a winner too.