Don't stick a fork in the ACC yet...

duckboy33 said:
Think Tim Robinson GIF by NETFLIX
Click to expand...
90% Sure
100% If we had a tag along buddy like Washington
 
Deep Creek said:
Just curious. Other than recent success, why is Utah considered more valuable than Zona, ASU or Colorado? Most of this realignment hasn't been based on recent quality football. It has been based on how much viewership you can bring.
Click to expand...

Viewership numbers aren't off the charts for any of them. CU saw a recent increase with Deion but that's temporary. Utah is the one that's the most committed in football. That's going to lead to the most sustained success. It's located in a state and market that's growing.
 
Thiefery said:
they are gonna have to pass the hat around if they want Haywood/Rodgers/Fasusi

the transfer DT cost them more than they previously thought it was after he gave heavy consideration to UT and LSU
Click to expand...
That’s exactly why the other two OU fans told them to dream on. From the way things are trending, the going rate for top talent is going to keep skyrocketing. Media revenue won’t be enough in and of itself to keep up.
 
TaikoTiger said:
90% Sure
100% If we had a tag along buddy like Washington
Click to expand...

If FSU and Clemson make themselves available at the same time, I'd expect the Big Ten to move on that. Right now, those appear the only two that are trying to make themselves available.
 
TaikoTiger said:
I would be less confident if didn't add Oregon who ranks behind Clemson and FSU in academics and R&D spending but they did and even over schools like Cal and Stanford. After academics, Clem & FSU checks almost every other box in reasons to be added to the conference



Click to expand...

Oregon is still AAU. Now the B1G has said that's not a requirement but given the options that's available to the B1G I don't ever see Clemson being an option. And Clemson is a damn good academic school.

I've said this to a few people on the Twitter and believe it. Clemson needs to hope the SEC wants them or they are stuck.

And to cover bases, Nebraska lost AAU for something like their med school wasn't on campus. FSU is inches away from being an AAU member and schools like UNC, UVA and Miami are already members.
 
T
rfjeff9 said:
I miss watching VT/Pitt/WVU Duke it out for conference bragging rights, perhaps if ACC does finally implode we can see it in conference again.
Click to expand...
The More I think on it Jeff, the more I don't think the ACC implodes. I do think FSU will leave, but who their partner is is anyone's guess.
 
duckboy33 said:
I read the Florida's AD's comments. I know what he said. We aren't in disagreement. He said that if adding teams increases the payout to each team, they will be voted in. He hinted that there would be no animus towards rival schools. There's no other way to interpret those comments IMO.

You don't believe those schools would be additive. I don't necessarily agree but if you're right, then I agree that they won't be added. I think if you look at FSU's TV numbers (and that was a against an ACC schedule) it's clear that they bring potential value to the league. I'll grant you that Clemson is more of a wash and I think there's a stronger case to be made against them. This is the legitimate point.

The argument about UK, USCjr, MSU and Arkansas is silly though. Those schools already have almost no chance of winning the SEC right now. They had almost no chance before adding Texas and OU. They would have almost no chance after potentially adding FSU/Clemson. What are we talking about? The SEC voted yes on two more losses when they added OU/UT and didn't think twice about it. If you make the schools more money, they will vote yes. That's the key. That's always been the key.
Click to expand...
You are just wanting to read what you want to hear. I'll post the whole thing below.

They wold not be additive. The SEC already makes a ton per team. At best Disney would agree to a pro rata share. Until the next negotiations they aren't going to up the amount they pay. The 29% CFP share won't go up because of them. And the SEC is already in SC and FL. So no, they aren't additive as I set up in two posts above in detail.

It's not silly at all ... it's basically what they said when they didn't approve the 9th game. They know a 9th game means they will add a loss more than they will add a win. They have a hard time getting to 6 wins and bowl eligibility. No, they do not want more losses. Why do you think they would. Open your mind for a minute and be a MSU fan ... do you really think they are so excited to have Clemson and FSU come into the stadium and beat them? Fuck no.

I already explained UT and OU above. Yes, money is key, but at some point you say, "we have enough, we want to have a shot at the CFP." Bringing in a ton of good schools doesn't help. Hell, Bama and UGA will be saying the same thing soon. We play @Bama, @Texas, and @OM. You think we want to add some @Clemson, and @FSU on a regular basis?
 
duckboy33 said:
Viewership numbers aren't off the charts for any of them. CU saw a recent increase with Deion but that's temporary. Utah is the one that's the most committed in football. That's going to lead to the most sustained success. It's located in a state and market that's growing.
Click to expand...
I agree on viewership numbers. But I disagree on other reasons.

If “sustained success” in football mattered, we wouldn’t have the realignment we’ve had.

And is Utah’s market/growth better than Colorado’s or Arizona’s?

Just don’t see it.
 
duckboy33 said:
Neither really have a good track record TBH. Genetics is a weirdo on top of constantly being wrong.
Click to expand...
We agree on that. I heard an interview he did ... he's a young Asian kid. Like people in the ADs of major schools are talking to some random dude with 15K followers on X. He says he's connected to Fox and ESPN and they tell him things. He's an idiot with a bunch of idiot followers, mostly FSU and Clemson fan bois.
 
TaikoTiger said:
90% Sure
100% If we had a tag along buddy like Washington
Click to expand...
Honestly, Clemson to me has just as much draw as FSU. FSU will always have UF and Miami to centend with. Clemson not so much.

What's funny to me about both teams is that they have had it easy in the ACC and now want to go to better conferences. Good luck with that.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
You are just wanting to read what you want to hear. I'll post the whole thing below.

They wold not be additive. The SEC already makes a ton per team. At best Disney would agree to a pro rata share. Until the next negotiations they aren't going to up the amount they pay. The 29% CFP share won't go up because of them. And the SEC is already in SC and FL. So no, they aren't additive as I set up in two posts above in detail.

It's not silly at all ... it's basically what they said when they didn't approve the 9th game. They know a 9th game means they will add a loss more than they will add a win. They have a hard time getting to 6 wins and bowl eligibility. No, they do not want more losses. Why do you think they would. Open your mind for a minute and be a MSU fan ... do you really think they are so excited to have Clemson and FSU come into the stadium and beat them? Fuck no.

I already explained UT and OU above. Yes, money is key, but at some point you say, "we have enough, we want to have a shot at the CFP." Bringing in a ton of good schools doesn't help. Hell, Bama and UGA will be saying the same thing soon. We play @Bama, @Texas, and @OM. You think we want to add some @Clemson, and @FSU on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

If you're right about them not being additive, then they won't be added. We agree on that. I have no idea what ESPN may or may not do. I know FSU gets great TV numbers and I don't expect ESPN would be happy to lose them to their rival. But again, if you're right about them not being additive, then they won't be added. I don't think the conference will expand just to expand.

The 9th conference game is not the same argument. That's essentially taking away an auto win and replacing it with an SEC opponent. That changes the dynamics when it comes to making the CFP and becoming bowl eligible. Adding Clemson and FSU means that instead of playing a Tennessee or an Oklahoma, you may play Clemson or FSU. That really doesn't change the dynamics much.
 
on the outside looking in.. feels that Clemson and FSU should go to the BiG.. they need them more for geographical and matchup purposes than the SEC does

I think Clemson and FSU are valuable but they aren't going to increase the shares that some of the presidents want.. the only school that can do that is ND
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
You are just wanting to read what you want to hear. I'll post the whole thing below.

They wold not be additive. The SEC already makes a ton per team. At best Disney would agree to a pro rata share. Until the next negotiations they aren't going to up the amount they pay. The 29% CFP share won't go up because of them. And the SEC is already in SC and FL. So no, they aren't additive as I set up in two posts above in detail.

It's not silly at all ... it's basically what they said when they didn't approve the 9th game. They know a 9th game means they will add a loss more than they will add a win. They have a hard time getting to 6 wins and bowl eligibility. No, they do not want more losses. Why do you think they would. Open your mind for a minute and be a MSU fan ... do you really think they are so excited to have Clemson and FSU come into the stadium and beat them? Fuck no.

I already explained UT and OU above. Yes, money is key, but at some point you say, "we have enough, we want to have a shot at the CFP." Bringing in a ton of good schools doesn't help. Hell, Bama and UGA will be saying the same thing soon. We play @Bama, @Texas, and @OM. You think we want to add some @Clemson, and @FSU on a regular basis?
Click to expand...
Florida President's quote:

"We have a good relationship with our friends in Tallahassee," Stricklin told reporters.

"No school has a veto in this league. If you get three quarters of the league to support expansion, we're going to expand. Anybody who made our league better, we'd be supportive of joining the SEC."

Stricklin added that the SEC has not had talks with Florida State or any other school about joining the conference.

"Whenever we've expanded in the past, the leadership of the league was able to lay out, 'This is why it makes sense to bring in Arkansas and South Carolina; A&M and Missouri; why Texas and OU make sense.'" he said.

"We all saw financial projections, competitive rationale, and three quarters of the league said, 'Let's do this.'

"If there were ever opportunities out there — and, again, no one has had any conversations — that is the scenario where somebody walks in and says, 'Here's a school, here's what they bring to the table, here's how it makes us all better.' We would be supportive of that."

FSU - doesn't make everyone better, and the competitive rationale doesn't exist for 2/3 of the league.
 
duckboy33 said:
If you're right about them not being additive, then they won't be added. We agree on that. I have no idea what ESPN may or may not do. I know FSU gets great TV numbers and I don't expect ESPN would be happy to lose them to their rival. But again, if you're right about them not being additive, then they won't be added. I don't think the conference will expand just to expand.

The 9th conference game is not the same argument. That's essentially taking away an auto win and replacing it with an SEC opponent. That changes the dynamics when it comes to making the CFP and becoming bowl eligible. Adding Clemson and FSU means that instead of playing a Tennessee or an Oklahoma, you may play Clemson or FSU. That really doesn't change the dynamics much.
Click to expand...
It's exactly the same argument. Most teams in the SEC are glad to get a bowl game. Add a 9th game and bring in FSU and Clemson and many of those teams stop getting to bowl games. All of them are now 2 more teams down the pecking order with little chance at the CFP. Adding those teams means you get one of them every other year. That's an extra loss per year for most of the teams. Add the 9th game and now they get 2 more losses in most years.
 
Deep Creek said:
I agree on viewership numbers. But I disagree on other reasons.

If “sustained success” in football mattered, we wouldn’t have the realignment we’ve had.

And is Utah’s market/growth better than Colorado’s or Arizona’s?

Just don’t see it.
Click to expand...

Colorado has destroyed the interest in their football program by running a terrible operation for decades. If the Deion experiment fails, they're right back to the bottom.

Arizona and ASU are huge underachievers. Arizona had a nice year last year but in the big picture they're a below average program that doesn't register on the national stage.

Utah has come up from the G5 ranks and passed all of them in less than 15 years. They're the rising program in that region.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Florida President's quote:

"We have a good relationship with our friends in Tallahassee," Stricklin told reporters.

"No school has a veto in this league. If you get three quarters of the league to support expansion, we're going to expand. Anybody who made our league better, we'd be supportive of joining the SEC."

Stricklin added that the SEC has not had talks with Florida State or any other school about joining the conference.

"Whenever we've expanded in the past, the leadership of the league was able to lay out, 'This is why it makes sense to bring in Arkansas and South Carolina; A&M and Missouri; why Texas and OU make sense.'" he said.

"We all saw financial projections, competitive rationale, and three quarters of the league said, 'Let's do this.'

"If there were ever opportunities out there — and, again, no one has had any conversations — that is the scenario where somebody walks in and says, 'Here's a school, here's what they bring to the table, here's how it makes us all better.' We would be supportive of that."

FSU - doesn't make everyone better, and the competitive rationale doesn't exist for 2/3 of the league.
Click to expand...
i actually like the UNC talk.. even if it took UVA.. i know that does not increase the payouts but it boosts basketball, baseball in this conference..
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
It's exactly the same argument. Most teams in the SEC are glad to get a bowl game. Add a 9th game and bring in FSU and Clemson and many of those teams stop getting to bowl games. All of them are now 2 more teams down the pecking order with little chance at the CFP. Adding those teams means you get one of them every other year. That's an extra loss per year for most of the teams. Add the 9th game and now they get 2 more losses in most years.
Click to expand...
what if you brought UNC and UVA?
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Florida President's quote:

"We have a good relationship with our friends in Tallahassee," Stricklin told reporters.

"No school has a veto in this league. If you get three quarters of the league to support expansion, we're going to expand. Anybody who made our league better, we'd be supportive of joining the SEC."

Stricklin added that the SEC has not had talks with Florida State or any other school about joining the conference.

"Whenever we've expanded in the past, the leadership of the league was able to lay out, 'This is why it makes sense to bring in Arkansas and South Carolina; A&M and Missouri; why Texas and OU make sense.'" he said.

"We all saw financial projections, competitive rationale, and three quarters of the league said, 'Let's do this.'

"If there were ever opportunities out there — and, again, no one has had any conversations — that is the scenario where somebody walks in and says, 'Here's a school, here's what they bring to the table, here's how it makes us all better.' We would be supportive of that."

FSU - doesn't make everyone better, and the competitive rationale doesn't exist for 2/3 of the league.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything that contradicts what I said. You really think he means "teams that we can all beat" when he's talking about competitive rationale?

To me he's clearly saying
1) If you make us more money (financial projections)
2) You make the conference stronger (competitive rationale, here's how it makes us all better)

I really don't see "competitive rationale" as him saying that we need more teams that are beatable. Especially after just referencing adding Texas, OU, A&M, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top