Just because you are the best doesn’t mean more value can’t be obtained. This is about money. If the SEC feels like they can expand and make more money, they will. That won’t be for basketball it will be for football. It’s where 80% of the value comes from.
Clemson and SEC in talks
- Thread starter Sparklecity
- Start date
Just because you are the best doesn’t mean more value can’t be obtained. This is about money. If the SEC feels like they can expand and make more money, they will. That won’t be for basketball it will be for football. It’s where 80% of the value comes from.
It is about money. Bringing in the market of the 12th largest state in the nation (not including the populace DC area) means a lot of money, from a TV contract standpoint. As I said earlier, football marquee status comes and goes (ex: Florida State). But geographic boundaries and population are forever. And if the SEC brings in Virginia, SEC status would be a huge boost to their football program. Leaving aside basketball, the SEC could bring in Virginia Tech rather than Virginia. Certainly the Hokies glorious football past, under Beamer could come into play if just football potential, not basketball, was the only criteria. With either Virginia Tech or Virginia, the SEC would still add the12th largest state in the nation, plus DC.
If we're going for population, go west for California #1, Washington #13 and Arizona #14 not north.
OK, now I get it. I guess Lurker123 was right after all.
My username is intentionally misspelled as an inside joke back in Cockytalk days. I joined but never posted back then.
You are likely thinking of B1G charter member the University of Chicago, which left the B1G right after WWII but stayed part of the BTAA. They were "replaced" by Michigan State in 1949.
If the SEC had a similar such situation, I could see Tulane having stayed in the "SECAA."
When Maryland left the ACC, they and Rutgers were going to be competing in the B1G for a few years before they would share in the revenue. I imagine that by now they are getting a piece of the pie,
My guess is that the SEC would work out something similar with Clemron.
They were only a full member for that one year though. They don't currently compete for the title in football. (They do in other sports)
It would not shock me to see clemson in. I guess I have the same opinion that I read, today, by a Georgia fan. He said that we don't need clemson in the league. He said that we already have 12 Clemsons in the SEC. He said we need balance ( supposing he is talking about strengthening the basketball part of the league's portfolio) and bring in teams from the states of North Carolina and Virginia, increasing the leagues TV market reach and thus adding more value to the SEC TV package.
Yep....UC stopped competing in athletics, but remained a part of the academic consortium, the CIC, until it was rebranded the BTAA in 2016.
lol!!!! I almost wish they would. Get ready for 3-4 losses guaranteed EVERY year Tigers. God forbid a badly timed fumble, or key player injury occurs...you're looking at 5-6 losses annually. If they have any sense they would stay in the Loch Ness pretending it's the ocean.
Yes....feel free to steal my quote.
Many on here are failing to realize the true dynamics of teams leaving the ACC and the GOR. Should 1 school leave, it would indeed be a financial hardship.
However, if 3 left in a package deal, this would severely damage the ACC, and most likely leave it either a shell of itself, it it remained at all. In that scenario there would very little financial liability to the original 3 defectors.
For clarification, the SEC would not be paying the exit fee for any ACC teams should they leave early, that burden falls on the schools.
Finally, there is an obvious amount of bias on this thread, if one could wipe this bias from the eyes, there is indeed 3 national brands in the ACC (yes, in football). Hint: they are ranked 12,17, and 24 in brand value.
However, if 3 left in a package deal, this would severely damage the ACC, and most likely leave it either a shell of itself, it it remained at all. In that scenario there would very little financial liability to the original 3 defectors.
For clarification, the SEC would not be paying the exit fee for any ACC teams should they leave early, that burden falls on the schools.
Finally, there is an obvious amount of bias on this thread, if one could wipe this bias from the eyes, there is indeed 3 national brands in the ACC (yes, in football). Hint: they are ranked 12,17, and 24 in brand value.
My dislike for Clemson has nothing to do with the understanding of the ACC football conference being much more inferior than the SEC.
Well "Brand Value" -especially in the last decade -is directly tied to W/L record, consistent standings, playoff appearances, etc, right? All that stuff leads to bigger /better shoe deals and cuts of the overall pie.
What you purposely (or not) neglect to mention is that those 3 teams brand value would definitely be less than they have been the last 15-20 years if they had played in a conference that is WAY tougher to win each week. I'm sure you watched the SEC champ. game last year. I'm sure you watched the NC game. If Clemson or anyone else wants to add those two teams to their annual schedule, plus 7-8 more that are top 25....and think it doesn't matter we will see how that turns out. The current format allows for lesser teams from lesser conferences to squeak into the top 25, top 35 and thus increase SOS and various metric strengths. Playing in the SEC (currently) already negatively slants the 4-10 conference teams in the national standings BECAUSE they all have to play each other and 2 of the top teams in the country, and now the new stuff they're talking about....will make it even harder. Two teams play...someone has to lose. The harder the schedule, the more losses.
My post was not a comparison of one league vs another.
I did not mention any three teams by name, but nevertheless the brand ranking is documented. Your second point is conjecture in nature.
For reasons only you can understand, you appear to have taken my post as insulting, and then went into a completely different direction, about playoffs, and the format in use.
My post was centered about ACC team(s) leaving, the economic impact concerning the GOR, and finally that there are 3 teams that are/will be absorbed by either the B1G or the SEC.
Last edited:
UC restarted their football program circa 1970.
So much for Chicago’s Big Ten team: 75 years ago, the University of Chicago told the conference it wanted out
So much for Chicago’s Big Ten team. Seventy-five years ago — on March 8, 1946 — the University of Chicago announced its intention to leave the conference. While no one’s ide…
www.chicagotribune.com
I don't think the SEC is talking to Clemson. Clemson brings nothing new to the SEC. As a matter of fact, it could be a minus with their joining. Either way it doesn't matter as they are locked in by that GOR. How did they get that chaingang agreed to by the ACC schools? It seemed desperate.
Would love having UNC and Va in SEC but they are probably snobbish but at one time "Texas would never join the SEC."
ACC is on same footing as Pac12. Pac12 is sinking and is as desperate as the ACC. Paul Finebaum said-Clock is ticking for ACC. He mocked the ACC commish for saying the ACC was a powerful conference and compared the attendance of ACC media days vs SEC media days in a funny manner.
Hope ESPN doesn't feel financially obligated to try and save the ACC. ND isn't stupid enuff to board a sinking ship.
Would love having UNC and Va in SEC but they are probably snobbish but at one time "Texas would never join the SEC."
ACC is on same footing as Pac12. Pac12 is sinking and is as desperate as the ACC. Paul Finebaum said-Clock is ticking for ACC. He mocked the ACC commish for saying the ACC was a powerful conference and compared the attendance of ACC media days vs SEC media days in a funny manner.
Hope ESPN doesn't feel financially obligated to try and save the ACC. ND isn't stupid enuff to board a sinking ship.
You wouldn’t feel financially obligated to save a company you have a multimillion dollar deal with? Interesting.
You believed him? That’s cute. Just like they were not going to 16 3-4 years ago.
Lets assume that ESPN would be willing to pay the bill to bring in 2 ACC teams. Would they pay to bring in FSU and clemson, realizing the SEC already has a dozen clemsons and FSUs (that is, the FSU of the mid 2010s}? Or would ESPN be more willing to pay to lure in the eyes in the states of NC and VA {including the DC area}, thus bringing in teams from those 2 states? Hmmmmm, Something to ponder.
The sec isn’t going to pay to get anyone out of the ACC. Some believe the GOR can be challenged in court. The acc teams will have to figure out how to navigate the GOR.
With that said I believe the sec goes after the larger acc teams as it relates to football. Basketball is only 20% of the pie and football is 80%. The sec will go after Miami, clemson, and florida state I believe if they take from the sec. I don’t buy the “regional” market. The sec and big ten need matchups to create viewership. Ask yourself on average who is going to being more viewership not just regionally but nationally. That is the big ticket. Which team brings more viewership playing an sec schedule, Clemson or UNC. To me that answer is a no brainer and ratings and statistics prove who is the more watch team out of those 2. I don’t like it just calling it how I see it
I think, rivalry aside, it's a bit of a stretch to claim there are "12 clemsons" in the sec already.
Also, some people have put together lists of how many eyes are watching games of the various teams. Those lists don't support the idea that NC and VA bring more eyes to games.
I believe they are looking at a combination of both....the new territory and also the eyes watching on social media. You can sell both to advertisers. That's what will make Clemson, FSU and Miami so enticing even though that territory is covered....national brands that people watch.
Agreed. As with most things, when there are two opposing options, the truth is usually in the middle, or a combo of both.
Put aside basketball, I am talking about new markets (states of NC and Va, not counting the DC area are the 9th and 12th largest states in the nation). I'm talking about devoted eyes. Brands come and go (example: Florida State). State lines are forever. Population sizes grow.
Get real. The SEC does not need matchups. It has numerous brand names, as is, even before adding Texas and Oklahoma. But Texas, being the flagship university in Texas, so much so that it had its own TV network, was the prize.
Personally, I really don't care if clemson was to enter the SEC. That would be fine with me because they would no longer have an easy path to the playoffs, which in turn helps their recruiting. Being in a basketball league is a lot easier than being in a football league. That's why I believe that Dabo is visiting his restroom more than usual with the thought of having to compete in the SEC. Don't fool yourself: between league membership and being somewhere that you can win at, recruits prefer being with a winning team over that of being in a particular conference. And like I said earlier, it would not shock me if they were invited. What I'm saying is that brand names come and go. clemson dropped a lot in the 1960s until 1977. They dropped a lot after Ford , until most recently. FSU has not been "Florida State" for years now. But state boundaries stay the same and populations grow.
By the way, add Miami's brand as coming and going. They are not the "Miami" of old.
Last edited:
Virginia Tech was a "brand name" under Beamer and, they are located in a large state.
To be clear, I don't have a problem for clemson to join us in the SEC. Do I care about clemson? I care about them as much as they care about Carolina. But, they currently have a huge advantage over us in that they play a schedule that is very conducive to making the playoffs. And that is a tremendous advantage for them in recruiting. Can SEC membership help their recruiting? No more so than SEC membership would help the other SEC teams. But, they would no longer be able to sell recruits on the PROBABILITY of making the playoffs. clemson being in the SEC would help us in that they would count as a conference game. Right now, in playing them, we are playing one extra SEC game annually without it counting as a conference game. Florida has the same situation with FSU.
Do I believe the SEC should go after the North Carolina and Virginia (DC) markets? Absolutely, from a business standpoint. You'd have to be crazy to not to. New markets is how any business grows .Organic growth can only take you so far.
I hear the argument about brand names. But when Texas and Oklahoma join, half the league teams would have won national championships. To say that the SEC is lacking for brand names, is a joke. It would be in Carolina's benefit for clemson to join the SEC. But, it would be to the benefit of the SEC to bring in the 9th and 12th largest states in the nation. It's not personal. It's business.
Last edited:
I would be very "meh" on them.
They don't bring as many eyeballs as even FSU, and their history is less than FSU's as well.
To me, they are a cute entrance away from being another Missouri.
I agree.....I don't have a problem with Clemson, FSU, and, a Virginia and North Carolina school joining the SEC.
Well, I guess it depends on if the SEC wants the Virginia footprint in the SEC.
I would say it's a dangerous stance to not be growing if your opponent is.
And footprint,imho, is not growing as much as adding great matches is. Although as stated, it'll probably be a mix of both.
No one is saying that sec doesn’t have brand names. But all of college football has a matchup problem. Their at best 2-3 games a week that bring national viewership. I for one would look forward to a two mega conference college football. Different matchups every year. Keep the same 2-3 rivalries for each team but then change it up.
I do not think college football is as “regional” as you make it out to be. If you don’t think the sec is after marquee matchups I got nothing for your. Georgia texas is a highly viewed game nationwide. Missouri vs Vanderbilt not so much.
That would be the best route for the SEC and us. The SEC would add to its footprint in the large states of NC and VA, And clemson's recruiting advantage of having an easy and clear path to the playoffs would be over.
I don't agree that college football has a matchup problem. Teams play marquee games out of conference all the time. It may be that the SEC and ACC merge. But, you still have the same teams. Regional or not, I believe it's important to add to your devoted eyeballs to make it more valuable to networks. I believe that when you have the 9th and 12th largest states in the nation possibly available, it would be malpractice not to try to get into there. It's not a coincidence that the Big 10 commissioner said that LA has the largest contingent of Big 10 alumni outside the Midwest. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the Big 10 commissioner is bragging about being in the 3 largest tv markets in the nation.
By the way, the SEC not only has "brand names", it has a lot of "brand names".
Get unlimited access today.