Online Now 1670

Unconquered

The place to talk about the Florida State Seminoles

On this Board 713
Record: 3837 (2/3/2013)

Online now 1172
Record: 5859 (2/14/2012)

Boards ▾

Unconquered

The place to talk about the Florida State Seminoles

Off The Reservation

The place to discuss general topics outside of Florida State

Reply

News from the SEC pertaining to ACC schools

  • The Sec didnt settle on mizzou. They wanted them. FSU, Clemson, and a whole bunch more good teams would have jumped at an SEC offer and still would

    GG30023

  • FSU and Clemson wouldn't have brought the SEC anything. The SEC settled on the only team that wanted an invite AND brought new households to the table.

    http://twitter.com/GeoffNichols26

    geoffissiffoeg

  • @Boone,

    Could it be your incessant posting on this topic stems from the realization that the Big 12 will be BETTER without A&M? I don't really get the motivation for your assertions especially the absurd notion that the smaller Big 12 schools will line up to keep FSU out if divisions were aligned a certain way. The Big 12 wants to expand, bro. And FSU is a desirable program.

    BigErn ●

  • FSU *is* a desirable program. I've got nothing against FSU. In fact, I'd love FSU and Clemson to join the Big 12. That will destabilize the ACC and the SEC can increase to 16. As an SEC member, this is a good thing for me.

    I'm just saying you shouldn't walk into this with the expectation that FSU will play texas and OU every year. The schools already in the Big 12 also want to play texas and OU every year because those are the mostly likely games to be on TV and they have the best attendance at the games. The same is true in every conference. The lower half of the conference wants to play the stars of the conference for money/exposure reasons. Keep in mind that these are also the schools that will vote on your acceptance into the Big 12. If they get screwed by your addition, won't they just vote "no"?

    You may not like my "incessant posting", but I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why you would be in the same division as any of the Texas or Oklahoma schools.

    Say for the sake of argument that a division was created with FSU, OU, texas, Clemson, Ok State, and Baylor. I believe that the rest of the college landscape might view this as OU, texas, and FSU getting what they want as the best schools in the conference at the expense of the other teams in the Big 12. The Big 12 has lost 4 schools in the last 2 years and the Big 12 commissioner was fired for this "top heavy" division of power. If that hasn't changed, might the Big 12 have trouble getting past 12 teams if incoming teams know they won't have an equal say in how the process is run?

    The true test of a man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you.

    boone8466

  • BigErn said...

    @Boone,

    Could it be your incessant posting on this topic stems from the realization that the Big 12 will be BETTER without A&M? I don't really get the motivation for your assertions especially the absurd notion that the smaller Big 12 schools will line up to keep FSU out if divisions were aligned a certain way. The Big 12 wants to expand, bro. And FSU is a desirable program.

    What drives conference realignment is TV dollars due to TV ratings. As soon as we added Texas A&M and Missouri, we started negotiating a new deal. Texas A&M has a large following outside Texas, mostly in the military. I know, been there, done that. We added Texas, especially East and South Texas, when we added them. Missouri gave us Missouri, including the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas.

    The SEC wants to expand TV market, so where is the market? The market is in North Carolina and Virginia. Originally the SEC had Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Virginia and Maryland as members. I wouldn't rule any of those out as future SEC Members. Virginia Tech is also a potential member. Florida doesn't want FSU in the SEC and South Carolina doesn't want Clemson. The rumors of FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 is because they think a couple of the targeted ACC members might go to the SEC. The future of the ACC probably involves an eventual merger with the Big East of football schools.

    Bulldog Backer ●

  • boone8466 said...

    FSU *is* a desirable program. I've got nothing against FSU. In fact, I'd love FSU and Clemson to join the Big 12. That will destabilize the ACC and the SEC can increase to 16. As an SEC member, this is a good thing for me.

    I'm just saying you shouldn't walk into this with the expectation that FSU will play texas and OU every year. The schools already in the Big 12 also want to play texas and OU every year because those are the mostly likely games to be on TV and they have the best attendance at the games. The same is true in every conference. The lower half of the conference wants to play the stars of the conference for money/exposure reasons. Keep in mind that these are also the schools that will vote on your acceptance into the Big 12. If they get screwed by your addition, won't they just vote "no"?

    You may not like my "incessant posting", but I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why you would be in the same division as any of the Texas or Oklahoma schools.

    Say for the sake of argument that a division was created with FSU, OU, texas, Clemson, Ok State, and Baylor. I believe that the rest of the college landscape might view this as OU, texas, and FSU getting what they want as the best schools in the conference at the expense of the other teams in the Big 12. The Big 12 has lost 4 schools in the last 2 years and the Big 12 commissioner was fired for this "top heavy" division of power. If that hasn't changed, might the Big 12 have trouble getting past 12 teams if incoming teams know they won't have an equal say in how the process is run?

    You do realize that FSU is seen as the replacement for Nebraska right? Not Mizzou or TAMU. FSU's brand is far beyond those two.

    If FSU joins we will play one of the two every single year and it will be the conference's 2nd highest rated game behind the RRR.

    fsufsu ●

  • @Boone,

    Maybe I'm missing something. But I don't know where you got this notion in your head that FSU...

    A) Would automatically be in the same division as OU and Texas.
    B) Would INSIST upon this alignment.
    C) Would INSIST on playing OU and Texas every year.

    Also FSU plays a little game against UF at the end of every year that typically draws national interest. Our Big 12 slate would have plenty of good matchups whether we play OU and Texas or not.

    As for the other schools, well, expansion appears to be a necessary evil and the only way to be part of the superconference movement. A few concessions may have to be made. Maybe the schools who want to play OU and UT every year (if they even exist) will take a game against FSU or Notre Dame as a conciliation prize. Realignment isn't going to be perfect but these schools will have to get in line for the greater good, which will include a more likely playoff spot to play for. Without expansion that doesn't happen.

    BigErn ●

  • Bulldog Backer said...

    What drives conference realignment is TV dollars due to TV ratings. As soon as we added Texas A&M and Missouri, we started negotiating a new deal. Texas A&M has a large following outside Texas, mostly in the military. I know, been there, done that. We added Texas, especially East and South Texas, when we added them. Missouri gave us Missouri, including the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas.

    The SEC wants to expand TV market, so where is the market? The market is in North Carolina and Virginia. Originally the SEC had Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Virginia and Maryland as members. I wouldn't rule any of those out as future SEC Members. Virginia Tech is also a potential member. Florida doesn't want FSU in the SEC and South Carolina doesn't want Clemson. The rumors of FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 is because they think a couple of the targeted ACC members might go to the SEC. The future of the ACC probably involves an eventual merger with the Big East of football schools.

    The SEC never had any of those schools as original members. I think GT was one, Suwannee and maybe Tulane.

    "People always ask me if I wish I were bigger. I tell them no. I always wanted to be a miniature badass." Dustin Pedroia

    El Guapo ●

  • He may be confused because they were all together as founding members of the SoCon then the league eventually had the SEC and the ACC fracture off.

    This post was edited by geoffissiffoeg on 5/28/2012 at 5:54 PM

    http://twitter.com/GeoffNichols26

    geoffissiffoeg

  • geoffissiffoeg said...

    He may be confused because they were all together as founding members of the SoCon.

    I'm not confused. The SEC started as The Southern Conference, and, when the ACC members broke off, changed the name to the SEC. Yes, Suwanee, Tulane, and Georgia Tech were all members at that time. Suwanee left shortly thereafter, due to emphasizing sports. Georgia Tech left back in the 1960's because Bobby Dodd thought he could turn GTU into a "Notre Dame of the South." Tulane left because of their opinion that they could never compete and maintain their academic standards. Both Arkansas and South Carolina have joined within the last 15 years.

    Bulldog Backer ●

  • G&G said...

    The Sec didnt settle on mizzou. They wanted them. FSU, Clemson, and a whole bunch more good teams would have jumped at an SEC offer and still would

    LMAO.. they were a big 10 reject. They bring so much tot he table that the big 10 thinks Omaha is a better footprint than St louis and Kc combined. Mizzou brings NOTHING to the table.

    mizzou was publicly groveling for a big 10 invite. If they got one now they would leave the SEC.

    The SEC was caught with its pants down b/c of A&M's behavior and was nervous that would have to schedule with 13 teams.

    THE SEC SETTLED, SETTLED, SETTLED WITH BIG 10 REJECT MIZZOU. Next you will be telling us how great NC St is.

    The SEC made a stupid decision. period. Mizzou is a school that cannot pay for itself in a contract.

    This post was edited by TNOLE27 on 5/28/2012 at 6:17 PM

    TNOLE27

  • boone8466 said...

    Site your source or STFU.

    ESPN has not said anything about Missou and A&M not affecting TV rating. CBS does not want to increase cost for first tier rights. I can even understand that. Even if A&M was going to play in the best game of the week, the second best game in the SEC is almost always pretty damn good. Adding more teams doesn't affect first tier rights. What will be changing is second tier rights and the value of third tier rights.

    Think of it in terms of the LHN. No one watches the LHN, but texas still makes it's money. Even if you believe that Aggies don't watch their own games (and the ratings below put that to rest), IT DOESN"T MATTER! The SEC Network will be shown by national carriers and probably charge over $1 per household in Texas and all the other states that have a SEC team in them. The Big 10 Network charges $0.91 per household in Big 10 states, and I'm sure Mike Slive will get more than the BTN.

    The really funny thing is that if you live in the South (presumably) and have satellite or cable, you will contributing to the Texas A&M Athletic Dept through the SEC Network. From the hundreds of thousands of Aggies everywhere, we promise to put your money to good use.

    I just want to join the Big 12 so we can continue to watch UT and A&M fans tear each other to pieces for our enjoyment.

    signature image signature image

    Any comic fans out there, check out Tart, written by a Seminole Grad, who is incidentally... me. http://tartwebcomic.blogspot.com/

    beanoleKJ

  • When did a big 10 team move to Atlanta? They must have b/c I have the big 10 network on my cable.

    The "getting into a new market" argument is never made by tv people-only by the A&M SID dept.

    Espn doesn't think A&M or Mizzou mattered or the big 12 contract would really suck and the SEC contract would have already been adjusted.

    it was not adjusted which means they do not help move the meter. Actually, CBS was pissed about Mizzou b/c it is a money loser.

    A&M is a 28-30 draw depending on the year and Mizzou is typically in the 45-50 range. Neither brings many sets.

    TNOLE27

  • TNOLE27 said...

    When did a big 10 team move to Atlanta? They must have b/c I have the big 10 network on my cable.

    The "getting into a new market" argument is never made by tv people-only by the A&M SID dept.

    Espn doesn't think A&M or Mizzou mattered or the big 12 contract would really suck and the SEC contract would have already been adjusted.

    it was not adjusted which means they do not help move the meter. Actually, CBS was pissed about Mizzou b/c it is a money loser.

    A&M is a 28-30 draw depending on the year and Mizzou is typically in the 45-50 range. Neither brings many sets.

    The SEC contract IS being adjusted. The conference wants to wait until A&M and Mizzou are official members before they announce anything.

    There won't be much of a bump from CBS because there's no increased inventory so why would it?

    signature image signature image

    Status ●

  • Bulldog Backer said...

    I'm not confused. The SEC started as The Southern Conference, and, when the ACC members broke off, changed the name to the SEC. Yes, Suwanee, Tulane, and Georgia Tech were all members at that time. Suwanee left shortly thereafter, due to emphasizing sports. Georgia Tech left back in the 1960's because Bobby Dodd thought he could turn GTU into a "Notre Dame of the South." Tulane left because of their opinion that they could never compete and maintain their academic standards. Both Arkansas and South Carolina have joined within the last 15 years.

    Bama, Auburn, UF, UGA, GT, UK, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, University of the South (Sewanee), Tennessee, Tulane, and Vandy left the SoCon to form the SEC in 1933. A full 20 years before Clemson, Duke, Maryland, UNC, NCSU, USCe, and Wake left to form the ACC in 53.

    The SoCon that exists today is the original legal entity with different membership.

    This post was edited by geoffissiffoeg on 5/28/2012 at 6:45 PM

    http://twitter.com/GeoffNichols26

    geoffissiffoeg

  • Status said...

    The SEC contract IS being adjusted. The conference wants to wait until A&M and Mizzou are official members before they announce anything.

    There won't be much of a bump from CBS because there's no increased inventory so why would it?

    The contract is up. If you had a marquee property CBS would bump up. Besides, there is increased inventory b/c you have 14 teams. Its jus the teams added do not add tv sets nationally as compared to other teams. Actually, Mizzou would take sets away if it was shown.

    Neither team moves the meter. That is the problem. That is why Mizzou is a big 10 reject and not a big 10 member.

    TNOLE27

  • TNOLE27 said...

    The contract is up. If you had a marquee property CBS would bump up. Besides, there is increased inventory b/c you have 14 teams. Its jus the teams added do not add tv sets nationally as compared to other teams. Actually, Mizzou would take sets away if it was shown.

    Neither team moves the meter. That is the problem. That is why Mizzou is a big 10 reject and not a big 10 member.

    CBS is going to bump up as well. Not as much as ESPN, which the associated press reported last week to expect around an 8 million dollar increase. Not sure you know what you're talking about here.

    signature image signature image

    Status ●

  • The SEC is THE big dog. They did not settle with mizzou. The SEC can get anyone it wants not in the Pac or the Big or ND.

    GG30023

  • BigErn said...

    @Boone,

    Maybe I'm missing something. But I don't know where you got this notion in your head that FSU...

    A) Would automatically be in the same division as OU and Texas.
    B) Would INSIST upon this alignment.
    C) Would INSIST on playing OU and Texas every year.

    Also FSU plays a little game against UF at the end of every year that typically draws national interest. Our Big 12 slate would have plenty of good matchups whether we play OU and Texas or not.

    As for the other schools, well, expansion appears to be a necessary evil and the only way to be part of the superconference movement. A few concessions may have to be made. Maybe the schools who want to play OU and UT every year (if they even exist) will take a game against FSU or Notre Dame as a conciliation prize. Realignment isn't going to be perfect but these schools will have to get in line for the greater good, which will include a more likely playoff spot to play for. Without expansion that doesn't happen.

    Why would TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor agree to this? Just because you INSIST doesn't mean you'll get it. maybe TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor will INSIST on being in the same division as texas and OU or they'll block your admission. Three no votes equals no admission.

    The true test of a man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you.

    boone8466

  • Fsu would not be in the same division as OU or Texas.

    We would be in an eastern footprint conference and play EITHER Texas or OU each year

    delawarenole

  • boone8466 said...

    Why would TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor agree to this? Just because you INSIST doesn't mean you'll get it. maybe TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor will INSIST on being in the same division as texas and OU or they'll block your admission. Three no votes equals no admission.

    1. Because we would make them more money than they are making right now.

    However, I think we would get one of them a year and both twice very 6 years and with 14 teams once every 5 years.

    TNOLE27

  • boone8466 said...

    Why would TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor agree to this? Just because you INSIST doesn't mean you'll get it. maybe TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor will INSIST on being in the same division as texas and OU or they'll block your admission. Three no votes equals no admission.

    Do you have reading comprehension problems?

    Last time, bro. NO ONE, I REPEAT, NO ONE, said anything about FSU insisting on this alignment. Seriously where are you getting this? Who the hell knows what the division would look like? Maybe TCU and TT or whoever will be the OU/UT division. Why would FSU insist on being in there?

    Go back and re-read the post you quoted before you reply because I don't have the patience to hold your hand through this.

    BigErn ●

  • delawarenole said...

    Fsu would not be in the same division as OU or Texas.

    We would be in an eastern footprint conference and play EITHER Texas or OU each year

    Do me a favor and post this ten more times so Boone gets it.

    BigErn ●

  • One last thought. There is NO WAY Oklahoma and Texas are not in the same division every year. The Red River Shootout is sacrosanct. The Big 12 wants to expand and would love FSU, but not at the expense of not playing at the CottonBowl during the Texas State Fair. Would the Big 12 intentionally put the top 3 brands/teams in the same division? Doubt it. The other division would would be a joke and not have a major team to anchor it.

    The true test of a man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you.

    boone8466

  • boone8466 said...

    One last thought. There is NO WAY Oklahoma and Texas are not in the same division every year. The Red River Shootout is sacrosanct. The Big 12 wants to expand and would love FSU, but not at the expense of not playing at the CottonBowl during the Texas State Fair. Would the Big 12 intentionally put the top 3 brands/teams in the same division? Doubt it. The other division would would be a joke and not have a major team to anchor it.

    Done with you. You're obviously trolling now.

    BigErn ●

Florida State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports