Report of Clemson and FSU to SEC
- Thread starter TN-Gamecock
- Start date
As I've said before, I don't see how it happens with the GOR, but if ESPN wants it to happen, it'll happen. Beyond that, the SEC is gonna look at the bottom line. If they think it's good for the league, they'll do it. They aren't out to do anyone any favors.
From a fan's perspective, I don't care about what's good for Clemson and I don't really care all that much about what's good for the SEC. I care about what's good for USC. Clemson to the SEC puts us in the best position to succeed.
From a fan's perspective, I don't care about what's good for Clemson and I don't really care all that much about what's good for the SEC. I care about what's good for USC. Clemson to the SEC puts us in the best position to succeed.
I think the GOR eliminates the slow death of teams leaving in one's and twos, but will eventually kead to one cataclysmic break up.
Historically it happens in may/June but who knows
It's not going to be what most people are thinking around here.
As far as I can tell, USC fans spend a lot more time worrying about Clemson to the SEC than Clemson fans do lol
LOL...no, CU to the SEC does not help USC.
As mentioned economics are your friend. Check 'em out sometime.
Sorry, I didn't say anything for the first time, but I just gotta say, it's "economics is" not "economics are"
You are proficient in grammar. However, it's clear that you need a class or two in economics.
As has been noted numerous time, the SEC will evaluate the economic aspect. If it becomes an option and they think it's good for the league's bottom line, they'll do it.
Yeah, no kidding. But the current status quo has USC at close to $100MM in future annual revenue as a member of the SEC vs approx $50MM to CU as a member of the ACC. No sane USC fan wants any of that to change.
I was wrong on one point - you don't need to understand economics to grasp any of the above. This is first grade math.
Petty insults aside, his argument is not based on the money, but on clemson getting knocked back to mediocrity by playing an SEC schedule, in spite of the money.
But I think you knew that.
Yes. I really don't care how much money Clemson has. If money = winning, A&M would be the SEC Champion every single year.
Gor won’t exist if 8 teams want to leave. It will basically dissolve the acc at least that is my understanding.
Bring back regional, grainy ABC games and low def JP sports!!
I miss childhood early 90s saturday football games
Whoa Nelly!
I've heard that rumored but haven't seen it confirmed anywhere. I've only seen it described as "ironclad". You have to think that those blue blood ACC teams have had their lawyers pore over that contract and take it apart syllable by syllable. That there has been no real movement to undo the GOR is telling to me.
Any argument that does not consider the revenue discrepancy is a bad one.
But I think you knew that as well.
Post of the year. Echoes my sentiments exactly.
Is it nice being able to see every single game on HD TV? Sure. But not if it necessitates the demise of the game.
Well, you should care about the money...particularly if we are on the verge of bringing in 2x as much money as CU.
On second thought, I guess this is more about economics than basic math. Either way, the concepts are not hard to grasp.
As I have noted in previous threads, our record vs Clemson pre-SEC and post-SEC is virtually the same. Revenue hasn't mattered. If money = winning, why isn't A&M the SEC Champion every year? Why aren't the Longhorns a perennial title contender?
The revenue argument is a weak one.
There is only one champion every year from a pool of 100+ teams. The fact that Texas and Texas A&M fall into the 99% of teams that don't win championships each year is not such a great point to make.
Revenue hasn't mattered as much in recent years because the pending discrepancy didn't exist. We're about to lap CU in annual revenue for the first time ever. It's silly to suggest that a $50MM variance going forward doesn't matter. I think we are now back to first grade logic.
If the money didn't matter, neither CU or FSU would be desperate to leave the ACC. And they are desperate.
You can't base your entire argument on revenue and then go onto explain why revenue doesn't matter lol
A&M is the richest team in the SEC by a decent margin. In 11 seasons in the league, they are about a .500 overall team in conference play.
We've come to the point where this thread needs a corroborative boost. We've actually past that point.
This is pretty simple...
Having money does not guarantee a championship.
Not having money guarantees that you won't win a championship.
All members of the ACC are on the verge of 'not having money'. It is therefore in USCs best interest that CU remain in the ACC.
Make sense?
I don’t know if it’s happening in 2023 but I do believe we are headed for an nfl like model in college football. Conferences with 25ish teams a piece and 4 major conferences.
It still takes an incredible amount of luck to win a Championship of any kind. A lot of things have to bounce your way that you have no control over.
He’s a little off on this one. To say money doesn’t matter is asinine. College football has been an arms race now for almost a 1/2 a century. If the sec nets their teams some of the figured being thrown out they won’t need fan money to operates. They can build any building they can dream off that money. That money can now go to collectives. It will redistribute the money in college football. At least that is my belief. Clemson, fsu and a whole list of others will not able to stay on the same level as the sec and big 10. It doesn’t take a genius to see that. Money alone won’t get you there but you can’t get there without it either.
It still takes an incredible amount of luck to win a Championship of any kind. A lot of things have to bounce your way that you have no control over.
Agree. We need the ACC and the interconference rivalries. They are fun games at years end. Our new additions,TX and OK, will leave rivals in the big twelve. I think it is important the other conferences survive.
Big Ten seems to care little about fans. It appears the inter-conference rivalry with the Pac12 meant nothing. I have no idea what will happen, but I get the feeling there are lots of unhappy supporters.
Both Clemson and SC are better teams since SC joined the SEC. And then there is this: THERE IS MONEY AND THEN THERE IS MONEY. How much money the support and the school have is one thing. What they are willing to spend on their program is another thing. See Alabama.
The argument does consider the revenue discrepancy, it just says it is outweighed by the much tougher week in and week out schedule.
But I think you knew that, and just wanted a snappy comeback.
My thoughts are that the SEC is NOT going to concede the states of NC and VA to the B1G and the Big 12. Those states are within the SEC footprint and the SEC doesn't have a presence in those states like they already have in FL and SC. If the B1G goes after and gets UNC and UVA, I have no doubt that the SEC will fight with the Big 12 over NCSU and VaTech.....you just can't ignore those two fast growing states and fertile recruiting territories on your doorstep to two other powerful conferences. JMO.
No it doesn't...he even explicitly stated that he doesn't care about the revenue.
Sure...one good snappy comeback deserves another.
I just don't see a scenario where the SEC has to choose between NC State/VA Tech or Clemson/FSU and chooses the former. It makes sense for the reasons you mention, but it makes zero sense on the field or for tv ratings.
But no one knows how those schools athletics will perform in a new environment. Everyone is basing the probable strength of those teams on recent history, but that is not infallible. NCSU or VaTech could have just as much success as would CU or FSU and could create better rivalries. Both are large schools in large and growing states. Either way it is a roll of the dice on how a new program will perform when they change conferences. I simply think the SEC will go after the new territory (as much to protect and even strengthen its footprint) and not concede it to 2 other large conferences.
Yes. We're arguing semantics here. He doesn't care about revenue because it's heavily outweighed by schedule difficulty.
And your other mistakes were thinking yours was a snappy comeback, or that mine was intended that way.
We're not arguing semantics. We're arguing dollars, which now significantly outweigh the other pros/cons involved. That's why CU and FSU want out of the ACC.
You made the first reference to a snappy comeback. If your comeback was not intended to be snappy, the only conclusion is that you were referencing mine. I appreciate the compliment.