Baylor is a private school and got lucky because an alum was in the governor’s office when the Big 8 came calling (Ann Richards). The state legislature would be more likely to pimp for Houston than Baylor. The Pac-10 schools are also very liberal. Before all this when it looked like the Pac-10 would just go to twelve the big controversy was what would happen to LDS BYU if the Pac-10 took Utah. Well the very conservative and baptist Baylor faces the same uphill issues with Pac-10 liberal bias.
I do think that Texas is really more interested in forcing Nebraska to Shiite or get off the pot than in switching to another conference.
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:61, topic:23382”]Baylor is a private school and got lucky because an alum was in the governor’s office when the Big 8 came calling (Ann Richards). The state legislature would be more likely to pimp for Houston than Baylor. The Pac-10 schools are also very liberal. Before all this when it looked like the Pac-10 would just go to twelve the big controversy was what would happen to LDS BYU if the Pac-10 took Utah. Well the very conservative and baptist Baylor faces the same uphill issues with Pac-10 liberal bias.
I do think that Texas is really more interested in forcing Nebraska to Shiite or get off the pot than in switching to another conference.[/quote] I don’t think this is true. See this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5256377
May not happen without a friendly governor too though.
Lol. You just said Oregon would be better than Nebraska. But previously said the PAC10 would be easier. You’re also assuming Nebraska doesn’t go to the BigTen. Going to the PAC10, basically they’d lose Nebraska (as far as quality), yet add UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Stanford.
[quote=“Normmm, post:63, topic:23382”]Lol. You just said Oregon would be better than Nebraska. But previously said the PAC10 would be easier. You’re also assuming Nebraska doesn’t go to the BigTen. Going to the PAC10, basically they’d lose Nebraska (as far as quality), yet add UCLA b[/b], USC (maybe sanctioned, much worse if so), Oregon (at best slightly better than Nebraska), Washington (pure crap), Stanford (c’mon, are you serious?).[/quote] Not enough better that it makes a difference. And I edited your list of crappy teams above. Thanks for making my point.
Edit: Also note that I said above “if it stays together” about the Big 12. So that would assume Nebraska had stayed.
[quote=“9erken, post:64, topic:23382”][quote=“Normmm, post:63, topic:23382”]Lol. You just said Oregon would be better than Nebraska. But previously said the PAC10 would be easier. You’re also assuming Nebraska doesn’t go to the BigTen. Going to the PAC10, basically they’d lose Nebraska (as far as quality), yet add UCLA b[/b], USC (maybe sanctioned, much worse if so), Oregon (at best slightly better than Nebraska), Washington (pure crap), Stanford (c’mon, are you serious?).[/quote] Not enough better that it makes a difference. And I edited your list of crappy teams above. Thanks for making my point.
Edit: Also note that I said above “if it stays together” about the Big 12. So that would assume Nebraska had stayed.[/quote]
Ha. I meant Cal instead of Stanford. But not sure how it’s making your point though. I believe Cal and UCLA have both been in the top 10 more recently than Nebraska. You’re completely ignoring that they are replacing Kansas, Iowa St, Baylor, Kansas St with USC, UCLA, Oregon, Cal.
And, I by no means am a PAC10 apologists. Just saying they are taking the best teams in the Big12 and adding them to the best teams in the PAC10, making it a tougher conference. Especially if Nebraska and Miss jump to the BigTen.
From reading SI in the late '80’s & early '90’s, it was always said that UM Football was restarted in '78. I guess SI was wrong. But there was no internet back then to pull up all of the old magazines.
If I said Shiite or get off the pot (even in jest FootballNow,) I’d be called an anti-Muslim bigot.
[quote=“stonecoldken, post:66, topic:23382”]From reading SI in the late '80’s & early '90’s, it was always said that UM Football was restarted in '78. I guess SI was wrong. But there was no internet back then to pull up all of the old magazines.
If I said Shiite or get off the pot (even in jest FootballNow,) I’d be called an anti-Muslim bigot.[/quote]
Yes SCK, you would be called an anti-muslim bigot. You just have that high level of swagger like that!
I’m sure SI meant that UM football was restarted from sucking, not not existing.
So what is the estimated timeline for all of this shakeup?
We know that if the PAC-10 adds 6 from the Big 12, the we know the Big 10 would follow suit the same year to add 5. And if that occurs, the SEC would probably increase by 4 to maintain relevant.
We can assume the PAC10 poaches all Big 12 schools, the Big 10 takes a mix of Big 12 and 2 Big East teams, and the SEC takes maybe one or two Big 12 and 2 or 3 ACC teams (seems Clemson, Miami, and FSU would be the obvious choices). The Big East would poach Xavier and Dayton. The ACC could poach Temple. Would the ACC then expand to keep current? Would Louisville, Cincy, etc. go to the ACC? If that’s the case, does the Big East split, raid Conference USA for Football and the A-10 for basketball?
The Charlotte administration appears set on 2017 being the year of transition from 1-AA to 1-A for football. If this shakes down 5 years from now, where are we? Looking at all this, the only conferences outside of those worth anything would be the WCC (which is on the wrong coast).
I just don’t see where any optimism is coming from. Best move would be to lobby Stanford to block the expansion and hope the Big 10 only goes to 12 with ND being the addition. A big mashup, and we’re playing teams I only hear of as the 14-16 seeds in the NCAA Basketball tourney.
I’m thinking SI used the word “rejuvenated” or “resurrected” or something like that.
BTW, SCK, you should read the Wiki piece on Canes football, which includes this reference to SI and Miami from the 1963 season:
In the later years of (Andy) Gustafson's tenure, two-time All-America quarterback [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/George_Mira]George Mira[/url] guided the Hurricanes to berths in the [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/1961_college_football_season]1961[/url] [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/Liberty_Bowl]Liberty Bowl[/url] and the [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/1962_college_football_season]1962[/url] [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/Gotham_Bowl]Gotham Bowl[/url], where they lost both games.[sup][17][/sup][sup][18][/sup] In [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/1963_college_football_season]1963[/url], the team struggled to a 3–7 record. [b]Nevertheless, Mira, who set many of the school's passing records during his four years at Miami, graced the cover of [i][url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/Sports_Illustrated]Sports Illustrated[/url][/i] and finished fifth in the [/b][url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/Heisman_Trophy][b]Heisman Trophy[/b][/url][b] voting as a senior[/b].[sup][6][/sup][sup][19][/sup][sup][20][/sup] Following the season, Gustafson decided to step down after 16 seasons as head coach and [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/Charlie_Tate]Charlie Tate[/url], an assistant at [url=http://ninernation.net/wiki/Georgia_Tech_Yellow_Jackets_football]Georgia Tech[/url], was hired to replace him.[sup][21][/sup]
I don’t understand why the SEC would need to expand to remain “relevant”. None of these two proposed Mega-Conferences look on paper to be even 80% of what SEC football is today. I’d still think that the SEC is the #1 football conference and the other 2 are simply fighting for the #2 spot.
The real problem here is that the Pac-10/Big 12 South are doing this to maximise TV contract money. They are basically slamming two separate conferences together. Even if they play a 9 game in conference schedule that’s only 2 cross division games a year. Oklahoma players (assuming 4 years eligibilty) will never play on the home field of half the other division opponents. They are still two conferences and the first time some TV network comes to Texas and says “if you stay in this megaconference you’ll get 1/16th of a $2 billion/10 year contract ( 12.5 million a year) but if you break back off we’ll give you 1/12th of a $1.8 billion/10 year contract (15 million a year)”. Texas will take it’s 5 stooges, find 6 more stooges and the Big 12 is back. Texas doesn’t want to leave the Big 12 and join a conference where Stanford’s whims could screw up everything at a moment’s notice. This is Texas trying to keep what it already has.
because if the acc takes these schools it hamstrings the acc. It also partners up current sec schools with an acc school to give most sec even more natural rivalries.
But the 2 biggest reasons I do this is to keep the acc from chasing any sec school whn they realize what is going on. Beat them to the punch.
The second reason is that it gives the sec a huge buffer of crippled conferences to the east and west (assuming Texas and the gang bails on the b12). This make the sec, along with the pac10 and big10 bosses over a castrated acc, b12, and big east.
I see three conferences coming through with any kind of power. The PAC ten will be one due to geography. The big twelve will get gutted. The big east will likely get gutted. The sec can claim all of Florida, as well as the entire se. With the exception of ca and tx, this is where the football players come from.
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:39, topic:23382”][quote=“Tintin, post:38, topic:23382”]If I’m the SEC, I go get Fl :)a St., Miami, GAa. Tech and Clemson now.
I would also consider Louisville, USF and even WV.[/quote]
Why duplicate in a market you already dominate? Especially when you can get better schools in better and new TV markets. The SEC needs to give ESPN/ABC a reason to increase an already outrageous contract to support new teams. Raiding the ACC or Big East would be like the SEC breaking into ESPN’s house, stealing electronics ESPN already owns, and trying to sell it back to ESPN for more than ESPN paid for it the first time.[/quote]
[quote=“NinerAdvocate, post:73, topic:23382”]I am worried we are a good 5-10 years too late to cash in.
Also, what are the chances that The Big 12 just gets absorbed into the existing BCS conferences, without much collateral damage?[/quote]
How could they be just absorbed?
If the Big 10 does not grow, then the Big 12 is six very good teams. Seems would then raid other leagues to keep the Big 12, and a ripple would occur from a different way. Maybe they would take teams from the WAC (Boise, Fresno) or MWC (TCU). Which would ripple into CUSA, but leave the east untouched.
But would the Big 10 allow the PAC 10 to expand like such? The Big 10 thinks they are God’s gift to football, and the PAC-16 would look pretty good.
I think you answered this question with your next sentence.
The real problem here is that the Pac-10/Big 12 South are doing this to maximise TV contract money.
Many SEC schools are in the sticks and don’t quite draw the same casual fan as some schools in bigger TV markets…i.e., Miami or Clemson for Charlotte.
Definitely not arguing the football product. Just arguing the TV contract standpoint.[/quote]
The SEC already has the best TV contract out there, They don’t need to maximize it any more than they have. It doesn’t matter if an SEC school is in the sticks or in a major TV market, they each got 17.3 million from that TV contract. To get ESPN/CBS to reopen their pocketbook they have to add value in 4 new schools equal to 69.2 million a year for the next 12 years. Clemson, Miami, FSU and GT don’t cut that mustard. The SEC is fine for now.
I think you answered this question with your next sentence.
The real problem here is that the Pac-10/Big 12 South are doing this to maximise TV contract money.
Many SEC schools are in the sticks and don’t quite draw the same casual fan as some schools in bigger TV markets…i.e., Miami or Clemson for Charlotte.
Definitely not arguing the football product. Just arguing the TV contract standpoint.[/quote]
The SEC already has the best TV contract out there, They don’t need to maximize it any more than they have. It doesn’t matter if an SEC school is in the sticks or in a major TV market, they each got 17.3 million from that TV contract. To get ESPN/CBS to reopen their pocketbook they have to add value in 4 new schools equal to 69.2 million a year for the next 12 years. Clemson, Miami, FSU and GT don’t cut that mustard. The SEC is fine for now.[/quote]
It seems Miami FSU and Clemson would add alot of interest…not sure of the money aspect, but all of the rivalry games with UF and Georgia and USC, etc. would be exclusively in the SEC…not to mention gaining Miami and Charlotte as TV markets.
I think you answered this question with your next sentence.
The real problem here is that the Pac-10/Big 12 South are doing this to maximise TV contract money.
Many SEC schools are in the sticks and don’t quite draw the same casual fan as some schools in bigger TV markets…i.e., Miami or Clemson for Charlotte.
Definitely not arguing the football product. Just arguing the TV contract standpoint.[/quote]
The SEC already has the best TV contract out there, They don’t need to maximize it any more than they have. It doesn’t matter if an SEC school is in the sticks or in a major TV market, they each got 17.3 million from that TV contract. To get ESPN/CBS to reopen their pocketbook they have to add value in 4 new schools equal to 69.2 million a year for the next 12 years. Clemson, Miami, FSU and GT don’t cut that mustard. The SEC is fine for now.[/quote]
It seems Miami FSU and Clemson would add alot of interest…not sure of the money aspect, but all of the rivalry games with UF and Georgia and USC, etc. would be exclusively in the SEC…not to mention gaining Miami and Charlotte as TV markets.[/quote]
ESPN already owns these games. They have the SEC and ACC under contract, so they have the rivalry games already. They own these 4 ACC teams for less than the SEC would want them to pay for the exact same schools. These expansions are about new markets, not duplication in a market.
Florida and SC (the states) are not completely SEC in terms of tv markets. I think you’re really under estimating the fan bases of FSU, USC and Miami. Truly owning the markets in those states would be huge. Clemson has been better than USC in both bball and fball. And it’s not far fetched at all to think the football power can shift in the state of FL from UF to FSU or Miami, giving the ACC a NC instead of the SEC.
Florida and SC (the states) are not completely SEC in terms of tv markets. I think you’re really under estimating the fan bases of FSU, USC and Miami. Truly owning the markets in those states would be huge. Clemson has been better than USC in both bball and fball. And it’s not far fetched at all to think the football power can shift in the state of FL from UF to FSU or Miami, giving the ACC a NC instead of the SEC.[/quote]
The SEC gets all the households in SC they want and I would be hard pressed to think that Florida doesn’t own the vast majority of TV sets in FL.
[quote=“cakewalk5, post:68, topic:23382”]The Charlotte administration appears set on 2017 being the year of transition from 1-AA to 1-A for football. If this shakes down 5 years from now, where are we? Looking at all this, the only conferences outside of those worth anything would be the WCC (which is on the wrong coast).
I just don’t see where any optimism is coming from. Best move would be to lobby Stanford to block the expansion and hope the Big 10 only goes to 12 with ND being the addition. A big mashup, and we’re playing teams I only hear of as the 14-16 seeds in the NCAA Basketball tourney.[/quote]
The optimism for me is I just don’t see the Big12 dissolving. It’s just not a good fit for UT, A&M and OU to be in the PAC10. I believe they’ll see they’re better off staying the top dogs in the Big12. I can see Colorado maybe jumping though.
But whether the Big12 completely dissolves or not, any immediate conference expansions can cause a trickle down effect, which would still affect us.
