15 replies to this topic

[coachx]

1st nothing is imminent but this is an interesting article with good points.

http://leatherhelmet...the-big-12.html

Of course both FSU and Clemson are better natural fits for the SEC (then V. Tech or NC State) from both a rivalry / fan perspective as well as geographical location. However, its not about rilvaries or fan preference. Its only about money now. Adding schools from Florida and South Carolina doesn't help the SEC get a bigger TV deal......in fact it could lower the pay out per school if they add two more members without adding a TV market. If you follow the money this could make sense.

Those long relationships between Virginia Tech / Virginia and NC State / UNC will get tested by the power of the all mighty dollar.

I personally hope the SEC and ACC will stand pat.

Edited by coachx, 31 January 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[hawksfanatic]

Meh, not much to it. The article would make a lot of points if their underlying assumptions are right. Calling NC State the Texas A&M of North Carolina is foolish. Yes there is some sort of an inferiority complex, but NC State is still under the large system of the University of North Carolina (not to be confused with Chapel Hill). As a quick wikipedia reference:

Quote

Article IX of the North Carolina State Constitution provides authorization for the creation of the University of North Carolina.^[7] Under this authorization, Chapter 116 of theNorth Carolina General Statutes entrusts the University of North Carolina to its Board of Governors.^[8] The Board of Governors is the policy-making body charged with "the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance of all affairs of the constituent institutions." It elects the president, who administers the university. The 32 voting members of the Board of Governors are elected by the General Assembly for four-year terms. The current Chairwoman of the system's Board of Governors is Hannah Gage, who was preceded by Jim W. Phillips, Jr. The president of the UNC Association of Student Governments (ASG) is also a non-voting member.
Each of the UNC campuses is headed by a chancellor who is chosen by the Board of Governors on the president's nomination and is responsible to the president. Each university has a board of trustees consisting of eight members elected by the Board of Governors, four appointed by the governor, and the president of the student body, who serves ex officio. (The UNC School of the Arts has two additional ex officio members; and the NC School of Science and Mathematics has a 27-member board as required by law.) Each board of trustees holds extensive powers over academic and other operations of its campus on delegation from the Board of Governors.

So yes the inferiority complex is there like Texas A&M, but it is highly tied with UNC and subsequently UNC-CH. Texas A&M and Texas University are two separate systems. It was much easier for Texas A&M to move away since there are no ties between the two distinct University systems in Texas. Not to mention that the "big four" of Duke, NC State, UNC-CH, and Wake have always been in lock-step from even before the ACC formation. They continue to vote in similar patterns even within the ACC (there have been a few instances where they disagreed but those were generally over minor issues). The SEC might want them, but for the article to have any truth to it the want needs to be reciprocated. ***I will note I am not entirely certain about what powers the BOG has bestowed on the BOT, so it isn't impossible that BOG allows BOT to have conference alignment power. I just find it improbable.

As for Virginia Tech, I do not believe the state of Virginia has a similar structure for the university system as North Carolina. The issue with VT is about all the political favors they pulled with state legislators to get UVA on their side in the 3rd ACC expansion (1st GT, 2nd FSU). This is more of a hearsay, but the political pressure behind the moves has been almost palpable. Leaving the ACC after less than 10 years would have harsh punishments for funding within the state of Virginia. Yes the SEC would offer more money in terms of television revenue, but that extra $20 million or so per year doesn't even make the slightest dent in the state provided funds. During the 09-10 year VT had an operating budget of roughly $1 billion. Sports ain't that powerful and my guess is that the article was written by an SEC homer who would find it unfathomable that a school would not want to join the SEC.

I will say that this article has the Clemson message boards in a large scramble. A lot of overreacting (like what happens on the Squawk), but there might be some embers. Clemson's athletic director (Terry Don Phillips) recently formed an exploratory board for athletics with some prominent people affiliated with the university. The understanding is that they are looking at how to improve the athletics from a facilities standpoint, amenities, marketing, and certainly conference. They are just trying to be proactive, which is definitely a new approach to what TDP has tried to implement by himself previously but is now asking for help.

[hawksfanatic]

coachx, on 08 February 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

The article also addressed the fact that USC would be against Clemson and Florida would be against FSU joining the conference.

I don't believe this though. USC and UF are already committed to playing Clemson and FSU for many years to come. Right now there is a bill floating around the South Carolina chambers that would force USC and Clemson to play each other every year in football. Admitting Clemson to the SEC would benefit USC as it opens up a non-conference opponent slot that they could earn more money from.

From the FSU side, UF has always been a backer of their inclusion to the SEC. This dates as far back as the 60s in which FSU made bids to be within the SEC:

Quote

From the Florida Times Union, 1/23/1963, page 14
ATLANTA, GA, January 22, 1963 - Florida State, which has grown since World War II from a school for girls to a co-ed institution with enough muscle to battle just about anyone on the athletic field, makes a new bid this week for membership in the Southeastern Conference.
The Seminoles' latest bid comes at the annual SEC meeting which gets underway here tomorrow at the Biltmore Hotel. The University of Florida, FSU's cross-state rival, is sponsoring the Seminoles' bid and has placed the question on the agenda.

And when GT left the SEC:

Quote

From the Florida Times Union, 1/25/1964, page 9
ATLANTA, GA, January 24, 1964 - Georgia Tech withdrew from the SEC due to the grants-in aid issue.
Although the University of Florida had an expansion motion on the agenda aimed at getting now independent Florida State into the conference, there was no action taken.

Quote

From the Florida Times Union, 1/24/1965, page 50
ATLANTA, GA, January 23, 1965 - The annual meeting of the Southeastern Conference will begin in Atlanta Wednesday with the departure of Tulane, the discussion of a round-robin football schedule and the status of Commissioner Bernie Moore the key items up for consideration.
Other items most likely to be discussed are the possibility of conference expansion to include Florida State, although this move is expected to be voted down, and a plan to raise the overall limit on the number of football and basketball scholarships.
...
Tulane's relationship with the SEC was to have been the main order of business, but the school clarified its position December 31 by announcing it would pull out of the league in 1966.
Tulane's departure, which follows by one year the withdrawal of Georgia Tech, leaves the conference with 10 members and paves the way for the round-robin schedule. Barring last minute difficulties, this item is assured to pass.
...
On the only other major issue facing the conference, Florida will again sponsor for membership Florida State, one of the South's leading independents. FSU Athletic Director Vaughn Mancha holds high hopes of getting in this year, but conference sentiment is running against expansion.

http://nolefan.org/s...ry/fsu_sec.html

I have never seen any evidence of UF blackballing FSU, I actually see the opposite as UF was always a major proponent of SEC expansion and they sponsored FSU multiple times. I read articles on the 1990 SEC expansion and they are littered with:

Quote

...Another report, by Mark Maske of the Washington Post, suggested Florida State refused to be in the same conference as Florida because the Gators “once fostered an SEC blackballing of the Seminoles.”

http://www.saturdayd...ern-conference/

I see it as hearsay, but nothing obvious that UF was blackballing. The same logic that I used for USC wanting Clemson admission applies to UF. I think the gentleman's agreement comes from the other universities that want to increase television coverage. My guess is that UGA and USC (maybe Auburn and probably TAMU) are in favor of Clemson but no one else because the added TV revenue is not worth it. FSU probably has UF and that is it.

Edited by hawksfanatic, 08 February 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[coachx]

You are using sources that are over 50 years old. Back then there was 1 collgege football games on TV a week, if your lucky.............it was all about proximity and location back then.

Edited by coachx, 08 February 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[hawksfanatic]

coachx, on 08 February 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

You are using sources that are over 50 years old. Back then there was 1 collgege football games on TV a week, if your lucky.............it was all about proximity and location back then.

I don't believe that cuts to the issue I am bringing up that UF is not blackballing FSU, rather other SEC schools are. The blackballed idea has no source to it that I find reputable (UF made a yearly sponsorship of FSU in the 70s). There is more evidence pointing to Florida being a backer of FSU in the SEC than the other side. When the SEC was expanding in 1990, FSU was on the short list of 11th and 12th teams (along with UT, TAMU, Miami, Arkansas, and USC). Arkansas was offered first and accepted. Then SEC was making a hard push for FSU, but when the SEC heard about the ACC likely swooping in the SEC decided to drop their pursuit and vote to not offer. The writing on the wall was there that FSU did not want the SEC at that time...so might as well make a quick excuse of "well you can't get in anyway!"

From an SEC perspective, it makes sense to say no to FSU because your alternative is giving you a larger market. It does not make sense to me that UF would say no to FSU. What does UF gain by saying no? That is not clear at all, maybe they gain some political joy out of continuing to blackball them(?). What does UF gain by saying yes? New open date on their out of conference schedule (home games are estimated to contribute $2.3 million of direct revenue) and shorter travel schedule. My point is, it is not rational for UF to blackball which is why I suspect UF is not blackballing. It is rational on the perspective of other SEC schools to "blackball" schools within an existing member's state by simply looking at TV revenue.

http://businessofcol...ity-of-florida/

Edited by hawksfanatic, 08 February 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[AHF]

You get much more national exposure with FSU than NC State and the NBA serves markets in LA, NY, etc. with multiple teams precisely because those markets are more valuable.  Florida is valuable enough that the NBA has two teams there, the NFL has two teams there, and MLB has two teams there even though MLB has no teams in either NC or SC.

Why wouldn't adding a national powerhouse team in Florida be more valuable for the SEC than adding a team that doesn't get much attention in a lesser football conference?

Who sits there envying the punch that NC State brings to the ACC?  A lot of conferences should envy the punch that FSU brings to the ACC.

[hawksfanatic]

AHF, on 09 February 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

You get much more national exposure with FSU than NC State and the NBA serves markets in LA, NY, etc. with multiple teams precisely because those markets are more valuable.  Florida is valuable enough that the NBA has two teams there, the NFL has two teams there, and MLB has two teams there even though MLB has no teams in either NC or SC.

Why wouldn't adding a national powerhouse team in Florida be more valuable for the SEC than adding a team that doesn't get much attention in a lesser football conference?

Who sits there envying the punch that NC State brings to the ACC?  A lot of conferences should envy the punch that FSU brings to the ACC.

The NBA/NFL/MLB examples do not follow. FSU is already established as is NC State. When the NBA/MLB/NFL decided to expand into Florida, those teams did not exist. The NBA/MLB/NFL did not have the national TV deal as the driving force behind expansion within Florida, they had the driving force of putting in "new stores". With NCAA conference expansion you cannot put in new stores, you need to shift around affiliation. This is a different dynamic than the SEC shifting around their own media market, which is the issue at hand.

The SEC benefits more, as a whole, from TAMU/Mizzou/NC State/VT than they would from FSU or Clemson or GT because of how television deals are structured. Why would any part of North Carolina have a basic cable package with the SEC network if there are no major football programs in that state a part of the SEC? There is no reason, so no negotiation is done. By admitting NC State, this cable deal needs to change. Now if you take any part of Georgia or Florida or South Carolina, a basic cable package is already going to have the SEC network because of UF and USC. Will those cable packages command more money for their subscription? Sure, but the markup will not be as high as adding the large viewership of a new market.

[AHF]

hawksfanatic, on 09 February 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

The NBA/NFL/MLB examples do not follow. FSU is already established as is NC State. When the NBA/MLB/NFL decided to expand into Florida, those teams did not exist. The NBA/MLB/NFL did not have the national TV deal as the driving force behind expansion within Florida, they had the driving force of putting in "new stores". With NCAA conference expansion you cannot put in new stores, you need to shift around affiliation. This is a different dynamic than the SEC shifting around their own media market, which is the issue at hand.

The SEC benefits more, as a whole, from TAMU/Mizzou/NC State/VT than they would from FSU or Clemson or GT because of how television deals are structured. Why would any part of North Carolina have a basic cable package with the SEC network if there are no major football programs in that state a part of the SEC? There is no reason, so no negotiation is done. By admitting NC State, this cable deal needs to change. Now if you take any part of Georgia or Florida or South Carolina, a basic cable package is already going to have the SEC network because of UF and USC. Will those cable packages command more money for their subscription? Sure, but the markup will not be as high as adding the large viewership of a new market.

I agree with this 100% on Clemson, but I think FSU brings another level of national interest that could increase the value of the package in all states as well as the packages with ESPN and CBS.  I'll admit I am just speculating without seeing the numbers, though.

[hawksfanatic]

Thought I would bring this up again. There is a lot of rumblings out of Clemson right now that they will bolt with FSU to the Big XII. I think the recent BCS developments are the main driving force, it appears that my ACC is entrenched as the #5 conference. Getting in the 4 team playoff will be easier (probability wise, not competition) in the Big XII than the ACC.

This could get interesting quick. I will be disappointed just from a fans perspective. Its easier to drive to ACC away games than the Big XII. Who the hell wants to see Kansas or Iowa State? That's a lame road trip.

[AHF]

I would be disappointed to see the ACC breaking up so members located on East Coast could join a bunch of western and mid-west teams in the Big 12 where they would be little brothers to Texas.  

Personally, I am still hoping Clemson and UGA renew their annual series.  It was a shame when they stopped that game.

[hawksfanatic]

Clemson and UGA both upped the fine for breaking their contacts for the 2013 and 2014 games. I don't think it will be annual although I know Clemson wants to always play USC and a tough regional game every season. They are lined up for Auburn, then UGA, then Ole Miss and then OK State for the next 10 years or so.

[AHF]

hawksfanatic, on 21 May 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

Clemson and UGA both upped the fine for breaking their contacts for the 2013 and 2014 games. I don't think it will be annual although I know Clemson wants to always play USC and a tough regional game every season. They are lined up for Auburn, then UGA, then Ole Miss and then OK State for the next 10 years or so.

I always felt that was a really series.  Georgia and Clemson are usually in that second tier of teams (sometimes rising into first tier and sometimes falling into third tier) and they have more history together than most teams do with the teams in their own conference.

[hawksfanatic]

Clemson is really an SEC team playing in the ACC. I'm sure if there could be do overs Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and maybe Kentucky would be out in favor of Clemson, FSU, and GT. Its a little iffy on GT because they were in the SEC for so long and their fans are few and far between in showing up to games.

I'm torn on how all this conference expansion will shake out. Part of what was so great about college football is the constant debates about which region is better. With a playoff, it gives you a variance packed "answer" to this question. If people recognize this then I'm fine, but when people make conclusions from just one freaking game I think I will get sick. A hypothetical playoff game of Clemson and Stanford just has no appeal to me and the conclusions that will be drawn will infuriate me (just as much as the WVU beatdown conclusions do, a playoff just magnifies this).

[coachx]

Rivals.com is reporting the 5 ACC teams have contacted the Big 12:
1. FSU
2. Clemson
3. Miami
4. Virginia Tech
5. Georgia Tech

Rivals is a pay site so I cannot post the link but its there on the main page for Georgia Tech. The Clemson, Miami, and FSU stuff is old news. Those 3 teams and Louisville have long been rumored to be contacting the Big 12. However, the Ga Tech mention is the newest tid bit. In the past GT virtually hung up on the Big 12.

Big 12 Sources have indicated that Ga Tech's academic prestige may push them ahead of Clemson and FSU on the Big 12's prority list. Many in the Big 12 are against adding both Clemson and FSU b/c their academic prestige is not on par with what the Big 12 is used to.....many Big 12 Presidents and administrators want to rebuild the academic prestige after losing 2 top 50 academic universities (Mizz / T A&M) for the likes of West Virginia who is not even in the top 150. Ga Tech for instance is currently the 36th rank academic college according to US News and World Report.

Rivals is saying Virginia Tech's interest in the Big 12 is more so positioning to move to the SEC if the ACC were to lose 2, or more, members to the Big 12.

Edited by coachx, Today, 03:52 PM.

[coachx]

hawksfanatic, on 22 May 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Clemson is really an SEC team playing in the ACC. I'm sure if there could be do overs Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and maybe Kentucky would be out in favor of Clemson, FSU, and GT. Its a little iffy on GT because they were in the SEC for so long and their fans are few and far between in showing up to games.

I just wanted to point out that there is a legitimate reason why Vanderbilt is in the SEC. If you notice every major conference has at least 1 private school:

SEC - Vandy
ACC - Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Boston College, soon to be Syracuse
Big 12 - Baylor, soon to be TCU
PAC 10 - Stanford and USC (A.K.A. University of Spoiled Children)
Big 10 - Northwestern
Big East - a bunch

From what I have been told........having just 1 member school of a given conference be private allows that conference to keep certain financial matters confidential or away from the public. If all member schools were public......then they would,in theory, all be owned by the tax payers and little, to nothing, could be kept confidential from the general public. So the TV contracts, and what not, are not made public. Of course they let us know some of it but its not an open book situation.

Edited by coachx, Today, 03:55 PM.