OT: You can't spell "SEC" without "Texas"

[Fullbacksympathy]

4 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

I don't know why the PAC12 would want the remaining eight Big12 teams.  Adding the leftovers from a dying conference would not help the PAC12's reputation at all.  It would do the opposite and water it down.  I understand that it would create more matchups in earlier TV time slots, which in theory may boost TV revenue.  But when you realize those games are being played in places like Lubbock TX and Manhattan KS, I highly doubt that theoretical TV revenue boost becomes a reality.  Big12 viewership was almost exclusively tied to games that UT and OU were playing in.  Games like Arizona at West Virginia will be ignored by the country as a whole.

 

Negatives:

-Increased travel costs

-Watered down competition level

-replacing historic rivalry games with cross-country snoozefests

 

Positives:

-Playing games earlier in the day when East Coasters are still awake

 

Just seems like a bad idea if you're the PAC12.

 

I think it's about legislative leverage at this point for the B1G and PAC.  It would be nice for both conferences to go up to 16+ teams without poaching one another and ruining our alliance.  The B1G and PAC are going to have to merge at some point, either in name or in operation, just to keep hold of the legislative power within the realm of the NCAA.  

 

If I'm the commish, I nab KU and ISU right now.  The B12 and P12 don't have to worry about the AAU requirements.  We do.  The SEC will likely get up to 20 or so teams.  We need to boost our numbers along with the P12 without ruining the alliance.  We need to be able to say, "Have fun with your 20 team ESPN semi pro league.  Our 35 teams plus independents plus midmajors will continue to compete for NCAA titles."  We don't have that power right now, and if we wait too long or screw over our friends, it'll never happen.  The B12 is dead.  Poach a couple.  But don't try and screw over the P12 in the process.  

[aphilso1]

1 hour ago, LK1 said:

 

I think it's about legislative leverage at this point for the B1G and PAC.  It would be nice for both conferences to go up to 16+ teams without poaching one another and ruining our alliance.  The B1G and PAC are going to have to merge at some point, either in name or in operation, just to keep hold of the legislative power within the realm of the NCAA.  

 

That's an interesting thought.  I'm not sure how the PAC12 adding teams like TTU, KSU and TCU will accomplish that though.  If the PAC12/B1G/ACC want to operate as a political voting block, they can do that without the PAC12 having to absorb deadweight Big12 schools.  And this latest powerplay by the SEC seems to have united everyone else.  See below quote from Washington State President--

 

“What the SEC has done is unify the other conferences in a way that nothing else could have, in terms of working together.  A lot of people now are very concerned about the predatory nature of the SEC. More presidents are talking. There’s a lot of back and forth.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/04/wsu-president-predatory-sec-has-unified-other-leagues-pac-12-expansion-depends-on-institutional-fit-and-revenue-potential/

 

1 hour ago, LK1 said:

 The SEC will likely get up to 20 or so teams.  We need to boost our numbers along with the P12 without ruining the alliance.  

 

Why?  What tangible benefit is there in adding teams just for the sake of having a larger conference? 

 

1 hour ago, LK1 said:

The B12 is dead.  Poach a couple.  But don't try and screw over the P12 in the process.  

 

Agreed the B12 is dead.  Agreed that screwing over like-minded conferences like the P12 would be foolish.  Just not sure about that middle statement and whether it is actually worth poaching any B12 teams.  Kansas seems like a fit for the B1G from a basketball perspective while not spreading the geographic footprint too much.  That probably makes up for the deadweight of their football program.  I assume we'd need to add one more team to keep an even number.  I just don't see any of the other seven teams as adding value for the either the P12 or B1G.

[kldm64]

If I was the Big 10 commissioner, I'd see if Missouri and Texas A&M have any interest in leaving the SEC and joining the Big 10

[Fullbacksympathy]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

That's an interesting thought.  I'm not sure how the PAC12 adding teams like TTU, KSU and TCU will accomplish that though.  If the PAC12/B1G/ACC want to operate as a political voting block, they can do that without the PAC12 having to absorb deadweight Big12 schools.  And this latest powerplay by the SEC seems to have united everyone else.  See below quote from Washington State President--

 

“What the SEC has done is unify the other conferences in a way that nothing else could have, in terms of working together.  A lot of people now are very concerned about the predatory nature of the SEC. More presidents are talking. There’s a lot of back and forth.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/04/wsu-president-predatory-sec-has-unified-other-leagues-pac-12-expansion-depends-on-institutional-fit-and-revenue-potential/

 

 

Why?  What tangible benefit is there in adding teams just for the sake of having a larger conference? 

 

The ACC big shots will get swallowed up by the SEC in due time.  They are in a better position on some level because of their television contracts, but the $$ their neighbors will be making is likely going to be too much for teams like Clemson to turn down.  There isn't a tangible benefit to insurance unless you need it.  The insurance is having power in policy moving forward.  Now, perhaps the B12 remains in tact, but I don't see it having any prayer of being considered a power conference if they do.  Plus, half the money just left.  Who would join the B12 at this point with every school looking around?  

 

If the SEC moves to 20 teams and the other conferences remain small, who knows how the voting will shake out in terms of power conference status?  Unless you have the numbers to match them.  

 

 

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

 

 

Agreed the B12 is dead.  Agreed that screwing over like-minded conferences like the P12 would be foolish.  Just not sure about that middle statement and whether it is actually worth poaching any B12 teams.  Kansas seems like a fit for the B1G from a basketball perspective while not spreading the geographic footprint too much.  That probably makes up for the deadweight of their football program.  I assume we'd need to add one more team to keep an even number.  I just don't see any of the other seven teams as adding value for the either the P12 or B1G.

 

I think the number needs to be even and we know it needs to be an AAU team.  That reduces our options pretty much to ISU unless we start poaching non-dead conferences.  

[aphilso1]

7 minutes ago, LK1 said:

 

The ACC big shots will get swallowed up by the SEC in due time.  They are in a better position on some level because of their television contracts, but the $$ their neighbors will be making is likely going to be too much for teams like Clemson to turn down.  There isn't a tangible benefit to insurance unless you need it.  The insurance is having power in policy moving forward.  Now, perhaps the B12 remains in tact, but I don't see it having any prayer of being considered a power conference if they do.  Plus, half the money just left.  Who would join the B12 at this point with every school looking around?  

 

If the SEC moves to 20 teams and the other conferences remain small, who knows how the voting will shake out in terms of power conference status?  Unless you have the numbers to match them.  

 

 

You're making some assumptions that don't appear true. You keep hinting that the SEC adding members gives them more votes.  That is false.  The NCAA Board of Governors currently includes only a single voting member of the SEC, the UGA President.  Even if they were to increase that number to two or three, the SEC will still be woefully outnumbered when it comes to voting on NCAA legislation.

Source: http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=EXEC

 

And let me again reference that interview with Washington State President Kirk Schultz, who happens to be a guy with a lot of clout considering he is both on the PAC-12 Executive Committee and the College Football Playoff Board of Managers.  He states two main points:

1. The non-SEC conferences are united in their anger at the SEC.  That tells me that the SEC is most certainly not in a position to shove legislation down the throats of the rest of the conferences.  That's one SEC vote versus 18 votes from other conferences, as long as the non-SEC caucus stays united.

2. Schools have to actually add value to the conference, or else they aren't worth taking.  A bigger conference is not inherently a better conference. To quote Schultz, “If we add teams just to try to keep up with somebody else but those teams don’t grow our revenue base, do we really need to add them?"

[Fullbacksympathy]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

 

You're making some assumptions that don't appear true. You keep hinting that the SEC adding members gives them more votes.  That is false.  The NCAA Board of Governors currently includes only a single voting member of the SEC, the UGA President.  Even if they were to increase that number to two or three, the SEC will still be woefully outnumbered when it comes to voting on NCAA legislation.

Source: http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=EXEC

 

And let me again reference that interview with Washington State President Kirk Schultz, who happens to be a guy with a lot of clout considering he is both on the PAC-12 Executive Committee and the College Football Playoff Board of Managers.  He states two main points:

1. The non-SEC conferences are united in their anger at the SEC.  That tells me that the SEC is most certainly not in a position to shove legislation down the throats of the rest of the conferences.  That's one SEC vote versus 18 votes from other conferences, as long as the non-SEC caucus stays united.

2. Schools have to actually add value to the conference, or else they aren't worth taking.  A bigger conference is not inherently a better conference. To quote Schultz, “If we add teams just to try to keep up with somebody else but those teams don’t grow our revenue base, do we really need to add them?"

 

Thanks for the info.  I guess with regard to the number of votes, I'm wondering what the critical mass (or lack thereof) might be for votes to fluctuate.  What is the minimum number of teams one can have to actually constitute a conference?  

 

But it's to the end of your #1 that has me concerned about stability.  What happens if the non-SEC caucus cannot stay united due to either 1) poaching or 2) not providing a place for at least respectable institutions to land?  

 

Hasn't the macro vision for the SEC always been to be the catalyst for the mutiny of leaving the NCAA entirely and figuring most teams will follow their lead or at least desperately try to be a part of their movement?  They could very well be attempting to build something higher than D1 and outside the purview/jurisdiction of the NCAA here, at least in football.  If that happens, it would be because the other power conferences lost their stability due to big dogs leaving.  They'd probably need about 30 to make it a viable semi pro league.  That perception, in my mind, could be altered quite a bit with a bigger B1G and P12 alliance, even if it wouldn't prove to be very fruitful monetarily.  Those two conferences could cover a lot more geographic territory than the SEC, and I think geographical alliance is going to matter to athletes and families, even if the money gets watered down a bit.  

 

I'm just spitballing but I'm trying to find the endgame in real time.  Curious on your thoughts.  

 

Edit:  Also, I would imagine an alliance could result in a massive, massive tv contract with Fox, who is still a major player in this whole scenario.  

Edited August 4, 2021 by LK1

[HuskerFever]

2 hours ago, kldm64 said:

If I was the Big 10 commissioner, I'd see if Missouri and Texas A&M have any interest in leaving the SEC and joining the Big 10

 

That's a bad look too. SEC fans have been pushing to get Missouri and Vanderbilt out of their conference for years. Sloppy seconds makes the Big Ten image just that.

[throwback]

The end game is the great unknown and why there's so much uneasiness right now. 

 

Is the SEC's end game to break away from the NCAA, start making its own rules, and turn college athletics into a free for all where they make huge amounts of money and become an NFL-Lite & NBA-Lite? Basically, they'd have a loose affiliation with their universities at that point (clubs). They may want to get to the point where they generate so much money that they don't have to take money from the school and to adhere to Title IX - then they can just become football/basketball (and maybe baseball) powerhouses. 

 

If that's the end game, the B1G wants no part of it, I'd imagine. I'm sure the B1G would still want "student-athlete" to be part of the equation. I could see if the SEC tries to go rogue that the B1G & PAC double down on maintaining more of what we have now, and the rest of the NCAA membership would have to choose sides. Very few would go with the SEC because they'd have no chance of competing in a free for all.

 

You'd end up with 2 "college" division - or more like 1 college division and 1 semi-pro/club division. 

 

Just one potential scenario. Hard to know what the end game is for the SEC, though. I would imagine at some point relatively soon, they will test the ability of the rest of the schools to stand up to them. Maybe something like announcing they're going to go beyond the scholarship limitations for a non-revenue sport, like baseball. Claim that it's unfair to limit baseball players from receiving a free education. If the NCAA/other schools don't/can't stop that move, the free for all is on.

 

SEC schools start signing 30, 40, 50 football players every year, guaranteeing tons of "NIL" money/payouts. I just don't see the B1G leadership having the stomach for that.

 

Having a B1G/PAC partnership gives them a chance to counteract that sort of move from the SEC and to have enough clout to hold together some sort of NCAA-like oversight for the schools that want to maintain the idea of the "student-athlete."

 

[cornfed24-7]

12 minutes ago, LK1 said:

 

Thanks for the info.  I guess with regard to the number of votes, I'm wondering what the critical mass (or lack thereof) might be for votes to fluctuate.  What is the minimum number of teams one can have to actually constitute a conference?  

 

But it's to the end of your #1 that has me concerned about stability.  What happens if the non-SEC caucus cannot stay united due to either 1) poaching or 2) not providing a place for at least respectable institutions to land?  

 

Hasn't the macro vision for the SEC always been to be the catalyst for the mutiny of leaving the NCAA entirely and figuring most teams will follow their lead or at least desperately try to be a part of their movement?  They could very well be attempting to build something higher than D1 and outside the purview/jurisdiction of the NCAA here, at least in football.  If that happens, it would be because the other power conferences lost their stability due to big dogs leaving.  They'd probably need about 30 to make it a viable semi pro league.  That perception, in my mind, could be altered quite a bit with a bigger B1G and P12 alliance, even if it wouldn't prove to be very fruitful monetarily.  Those two conferences could cover a lot more geographic territory than the SEC, and I think geographical alliance is going to matter to athletes and families, even if the money gets watered down a bit.  

 

I'm just spitballing but I'm trying to find the endgame in real time.  Curious on your thoughts.  

 

Edit:  Also, I would imagine an alliance could result in a massive, massive tv contract with Fox, who is still a major player in this whole scenario.  

I'll spitball with ya!

I am wondering what this next TV contract looks like. A lot of eggs being put into the "this is a done deal of an astronomical payday" basket. 

At some point ESPN is going to just be bidding against itself. I know the number is going to be big but this will always be a supply and demand issue. The bet is the demand for marquee matchups is worth increasing the supply of those matchups within the SEC. 

With so many different ways to consume now, cable, satellite, anyone of the numerous streaming services this seems like a big bet to me.

Feels like a bubble. 

[HuskerFever]

I JUST WANT A PROMOTION/RELEGATION LEAGUE!!!

 

(Oh wait, wrong thread...)

[49r]

I become more disenchanted with College sports every day.

[throwback]

After a bit more thought, I think the SEC's ultimate goal here is to do away with the NCAA, put an end to scholarship limits, recruiting rules, payouts, etc (so kind of like they do now  ) and pull in all of the best players and win every championship. I think they'd just expect everyone else to fall in line behind them, as they have the most power & the biggest names. They'd assume everyone else would go along with them, because college sports couldn't operate without them.

 

If that's the goal, I think they're badly misjudging the B1G & PAC's goals (and parts of the ACC). I just don't think the more academic focused schools go with them. In fact, I think those schools might celebrate the SEC going off on their own, and I think they'd counter by holding the remaining schools together and giving the NCAA more ability to enforce the rules.

 

I know a lot of people like to complain about the NCAA's inability/unwillingness to enforce the current rules -- and I'm usually leading the charge -- but it's the schools who tell the NCAA what it can and cannot do. The schools have basically made the NCAA the weak entity it is currently. And the SEC loves that, but a weaker NCAA means more power and money for the SEC, and they'd love that even more.

 

However, the SEC may find that the TV money is great early after a breakaway, but with the way college sports are regionalized the majority of the season, I think they'd find that most of the country won't care about their NFL-lite model, especially if the rest of the schools cobble together some sort of new NCAA, minus the SEC. 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by throwback

[aphilso1]

15 hours ago, LK1 said:

 

Thanks for the info.  I guess with regard to the number of votes, I'm wondering what the critical mass (or lack thereof) might be for votes to fluctuate.  What is the minimum number of teams one can have to actually constitute a conference?  

 

But it's to the end of your #1 that has me concerned about stability.  What happens if the non-SEC caucus cannot stay united due to either 1) poaching or 2) not providing a place for at least respectable institutions to land?  

 

Hasn't the macro vision for the SEC always been to be the catalyst for the mutiny of leaving the NCAA entirely and figuring most teams will follow their lead or at least desperately try to be a part of their movement?  They could very well be attempting to build something higher than D1 and outside the purview/jurisdiction of the NCAA here, at least in football.  If that happens, it would be because the other power conferences lost their stability due to big dogs leaving.  They'd probably need about 30 to make it a viable semi pro league.  That perception, in my mind, could be altered quite a bit with a bigger B1G and P12 alliance, even if it wouldn't prove to be very fruitful monetarily.  Those two conferences could cover a lot more geographic territory than the SEC, and I think geographical alliance is going to matter to athletes and families, even if the money gets watered down a bit.  

 

I'm just spitballing but I'm trying to find the endgame in real time.  Curious on your thoughts.  

 

Edit:  Also, I would imagine an alliance could result in a massive, massive tv contract with Fox, who is still a major player in this whole scenario.  

 

Not sure what happens if the non-SEC caucus splits up.  There are lots of possibilities.

a. Elite teams from PAC/B1G/ACC form a super conference to challenge the SEC, maybe those two conferences leave the NCAA, or maybe not

b. Elite teams continue to trickle over to the SEC, until the rest of the NCAA is basically a minor league while the SEC is the major league

c. no further changes.

d. Clemson and FSU jump to the SEC, and then no further changes.

e. ***schools in SEC become disenfranchised and decide to move back to their historical conferences

f. lots of other possibilities

 

I do think it's worth noting that conference realignment is not a recent phenomena.  Look at schools like Goergia Tech and how much their affiliation has changed over the decades.  Or heck, even Tulane used to be an SEC member.  

 

Now all that being said, I think it is actually more likely that the non-SEC caucus holds together.  University Presidents are academicians by trade, and  don't want to waste all of their time on this sports stuff.  Stability in athletics is important to them.  And I think (outside of the SEC) we are finally starting to see the collective mentality change from "add whoever we can to the conference to get more money" to "maybe tradition, stability, and local rivalries are important too."  And they are just at the very beginning of starting to flesh out what that means.  At a minimum I think the PAC/B1G/ACC will agree to not poach teams from each others' conferences.  But probably much more than that.

 

My guess is you will see a lot of pushback against the SEC over the next few years.  No more playing "neutral site" games in the SEC's backyard.  Prioritizing scheduling the other major conferences over the SEC.  Maybe even some subtle downgrading of the SEC teams when playoff rankings first come out.  That sort of thing.  Nothing egregious.  No official boycotts of scheduling SEC teams.  Just a little bit of a poke in the eye to say "hey, we're sick of your crap."

 

EDIT: I wanted to expand on that asterisked thought at the top and forgot to.  Let's say the SEC gets what it wants and also adds Clemson and FSU.  Well there's only one team that can win each game, and at that point they would have a whole lot of teams in the conference that expect to win 10+ games every year.  Many of those teams are going to be a whole lot closer to 6-6 than they are to 11-1.  There's just not enough games against Vandy and Ol' Miss to keep those proud programs afloat.  I think a very real possibility is that the SEC could find itself with a bunch of unhappy programs that eventually decide to break the conference up.  Proud programs like beating middle-of-the-pack teams a whole lot more than they like losing to elite teams.  

Edited August 5, 2021 by aphilso1

[hhcmatt]

14 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

That's a bad look too. SEC fans have been pushing to get Missouri and Vanderbilt out of their conference for years. Sloppy seconds makes the Big Ten image just that.

 

If you put conference change in the scope of what will be said on ESPN First take or a bar in Tuscaloosa, you're not doing it right.

 

The biggest thing both of these schools have going for them is they fit what the B1G is looking for in terms of academics. After that, it's a matter of whether getting onto TVs in the state of Missouri and a recruiting foothold into Tennessee swings things. Texas A&M and Missouri would be excellent acquisitions for the B1G; However I think that the sloppy seconds of Missouri and Vanderbilt bring more to the table than Iowa and Kansas. 

[hhcmatt]

For anyone talking about a ACC moving somewhere, please be advised that they all are signed into the ACC Network/ESPN until 2036 and in theory if a school leaves before then they would need to forfeit their media rights to the ACC until 2036.

 

https://apnews.com/article/05f36b070e104fa2a90d46e588ac9fb5

 

[aphilso1]

21 minutes ago, throwback said:

After a bit more thought, I think the SEC's ultimate goal here is to do away with the NCAA, put an end to scholarship limits, recruiting rules, payouts, etc (so kind of like they do now  ) and pull in all of the best players and win every championship. I think they'd just expect everyone else to fall in line behind them, as they have the most power & the biggest names. They'd assume everyone else would go along with them, because college sports couldn't operate without them.

 

If that's the goal, I think they're badly misjudging the B1G & PAC's goals (and parts of the ACC). I just don't think the more academic focused schools go with them. In fact, I think those schools might celebrate the SEC going off on their own, and I think they'd counter by holding the remaining schools together and giving the NCAA more ability to enforce the rules.

 

I know a lot of people like to complain about the NCAA's inability/unwillingness to enforce the current rules -- and I'm usually leading the charge -- but it's the schools who tell the NCAA what it can and cannot do. The schools have basically made the NCAA the weak entity it is currently. And the SEC loves that, but a weaker NCAA means more power and money for the SEC, and they'd love that even more.

 

However, the SEC may find that the TV money is great early after a breakaway, but with the way college sports are regionalized the majority of the season, I think they'd find that most of the country won't care about their NFL-lite model, especially if the rest of the schools cobble together some sort of new NCAA, minus the SEC. 

 

 

Bingo.  The rest of the country isn't going to care about two historical programs with a 5-6 record playing each other.  Yeah, the SEC will be able to ensure that a 10-1 team playing a 9-2 team is must-see TV, but there will be just as many matchups of teams with great names and mediocre records. Fans outside of SEC country are not going to watch that. 

[49r]

59 minutes ago, throwback said:

However, the SEC may find that the TV money is great early after a breakaway, but with the way college sports are regionalized the majority of the season, I think they'd find that most of the country won't care about their NFL-lite model, especially if the rest of the schools cobble together some sort of new NCAA, minus the SEC. 

 

This is kind of my hope of where things go.  SEC breaks away and forms their own second tier professional league brought to you by ESPN and the rest of us continue to play college sports, governed by the NCAA.  This is the ideal scenario for me honestly.

[cornfed24-7]

48 minutes ago, 49r said:

SEC breaks away and forms their own second tier professional league brought to you by ESPN...

If this is thier ultimate goal I think they are seriously over playing thier hand. Maybe I'm naive, but if I had a child that was talented enough to garner a scholarship offer in football I absolutely would be 100% against them going to an institution/an entire conference whose priority is football then academics. I don't believe I'd be a small minority either. Again, probably naive.

[throwback]

1 hour ago, cornfed24-7 said:

If this is thier ultimate goal I think they are seriously over playing thier hand. Maybe I'm naive, but if I had a child that was talented enough to garner a scholarship offer in football I absolutely would be 100% against them going to an institution/an entire conference whose priority is football then academics. I don't believe I'd be a small minority either. Again, probably naive.

Not naive, but if a breakaway SEC can sell itself as the primary way to the NFL/NBA/MLB, plus you'll get paid very well while you're in "school", they will pull in 90%-95% of the highest ranked players every year. Nearly all players have NBA/NFL dreams.

 

Then it becomes, does the viewing public care that the "best" age 18-22 players are in the SEC? Or are they still cheering for their school that's not part of the SEC and don't really care that they're not getting the best of the best players.

 

I'd imagine most college sports fans are cheering for their school, and as long as there's still a competitive tier of the "NCAA" below that SEC tier, it won't hurt the viewership/attendance all that much. 

 

Make the SEC in essence a minor league to the NFL/NBA/MLB, and I think it's ultimately a failure. Minor leagues have never been successful nationally. This one would certainly be unique in having the college/state pride model at its heart. But eventually, I think most of the country would yawn at it. They'd rather watch their own team and tailgate on their own campus, than make a breakaway SEC game in October must-see TV.

 

I agree that, if this is the end game, the SEC is waaaaay overplaying its hand. ESPN has made a pretty stupid decision or two over time -- cough, Longwhorn Network, cough -- so it wouldn't shock me if this is the ultimate grand plan, though. 

 

Now if the SEC can get the other schools to follow along with its no-holds-barred model of college sports minus the NCAA, then they win. I don't see it working, but who knows. As long as FOX (or CBS/NBC) has the stomach to continue battling ESPN and offering an alternative, the academic focused schools can hold out. If ESPN becomes the only option, then they can call the shots and all bets are off.

 

At this point, I think the B1G is probably better off standing pat. There's no point in making a reactionary move and adding schools just to add schools. Wait a little longer to see if the SEC will tip its hand. Fortunately, we have the right guy in charge to stand pat and do nothing. 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by throwback

[cornfed24-7]

1 hour ago, throwback said:

Not naive, but if a breakaway SEC can sell itself as the primary way to the NFL/NBA/MLB, plus you'll get paid very well while you're in "school", they will pull in 90%-95% of the highest ranked players every year. Nearly all players have NBA/NFL dreams.

 

Then it becomes, does the viewing public care that the "best" age 18-22 players are in the SEC? Or are they still cheering for their school that's not part of the SEC and don't really care that they're not getting the best of the best players.

 

I'd imagine most college sports fans are cheering for their school, and as long as there's still a competitive tier of the "NCAA" below that SEC tier, it won't hurt the viewership/attendance all that much. 

 

Make the SEC in essence a minor league to the NFL/NBA/MLB, and I think it's ultimately a failure. Minor leagues have never been successful nationally. This one would certainly be unique in having the college/state pride model at its heart. But eventually, I think most of the country would yawn at it. They'd rather watch their own team and tailgate on their own campus, than make a breakaway SEC game in October must-see TV.

 

I agree that, if this is the end game, the SEC is waaaaay overplaying its hand. ESPN has made a pretty stupid decision or two over time -- cough, Longwhorn Network, cough -- so it wouldn't shock me if this is the ultimate grand plan, though. 

 

Now if the SEC can get the other schools to follow along with its no-holds-barred model of college sports minus the NCAA, then they win. I don't see it working, but who knows. As long as FOX (or CBS/NBC) has the stomach to continue battling ESPN and offering an alternative, the academic focused schools can hold out. If ESPN becomes the only option, then they can call the shots and all bets are off.

 

At this point, I think the B1G is probably better off standing pat. There's no point in making a reactionary move and adding schools just to add schools. Wait a little longer to see if the SEC will tip its hand. Fortunately, we have the right guy in charge to stand pat and do nothing. 

 

I agree with this. A couple more points in why I don't see this working.

Viewership trends in football in general have been in decline. If you want to accelerate that concerning college football I think this is how you do it. Take away the essence of what makes college football great. 

Also, I am skeptical of the riches being promised via NIL. Let's see how that plays out. You want to use that as a pitch go ahead. But just wait until the opposite pitch comes through.

"Oh they promised you'd make 50k in NIL. Just remember what happend to thier 5star QB a couple years back. Made 50K his freshman year. Then blew out his knee. Pulled his ship. Now hes at community college working at Taco Bell. We will make sure you get an education. Prepare you for life and football. Yada yada"

I think those scenarios are much more like than kids striking it rich. We'll see.

Of course all the pitfalls I see will take at least a decade to manifest and by then college football may be a shell of what it once was.

 

 

 

 

 

[HuskerFever]

7 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

...and a recruiting foothold into Tennessee swings things.

 

Very interesting point.

[kldm64]

It's amazing how people are so anti-SEC cause they pulled off an very good move for their conference in acquiring Texas and OU.  Would everyone here have the same reaction if the Big 10 landed these schools?  Probably not as it would strengthen the conference brand and increase overall revenue which it typically what every school wants.  Nebraska did the exact same thing Texas and OU are doing and people thought it was a great move and the profit sharing NU would get.  

 

Without question, the SEC already was the strongest football conference before this and now it will get even stronger.  Hard to fault them for that. 

[49r]

I wasn’t happy when we added Rutgers and Maryland TBH. Not a fan of super conferences


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, kldm64 said:

Without question, the SEC already was the strongest football conference before this and now it will get even stronger.  Hard to fault them for that. 

 

They got some good basketball programs added to the conference as well.

[cornfed24-7]

3 hours ago, kldm64 said:

Nebraska did the exact same thing Texas and OU are doing...

Was it though?

But to answer your question NO I would not be happy with Texas or OU in the BIG TEN. But, in my perfect world the BIG 8 still exists so take my opinion for what it's worth