Report:The SEC Is Targeting Ohio State, Clemson, Michigan And Florida State For Expansion
- Thread starter russtang
- Start date
You are correct and I don’t blame them. I don’t blame them for maintaining psuedo-independence as long as they can either. Championships, whether conference or national, simply don’t mean that much to them. (And I’m not trying to be cavalier. Conference titles literally mean nothing to them. And their unwillingness to conform to the changing landscape since the 1980s proves that national titles aren’t that important either).
I’m only referring to their long standing rivalries with Purdue, Michigan State, and to a lesser extent, Michigan. There is a ton of history there. However, you nailed it on how they feel for the Big Ten overall, I think. That’s probably a bridge too far.
I suspect they will be the ACC’s savior, when all is said and done. The one play the Big Ten has though, is their apparent interest in raiding the PAC 12. Bringing in USC and Stanford would be something that might shift Notre Dame’s attitude.
I could be rather in left field on this one but I think the SEC is thinking beyond regional markets. I get the concept but in this day and age if you had the chance to watch Stanford v USC or Clemson v Texas or Alabama v Oklahoma where do you think the majority of the nation is tuning in? So to me adding Clemson and FSU or even Miami strengthens the hand of the SEC on viewership because these games can be viewed nationwide in real time. The media capabilities with live stream have opened plenty of doors for that. People want to watch teams that are relevant and for the last ten the PAC 12 just haven’t had that appeal. The Big Ten trails behind the ACC and SEC (mainly because of Clemson’s CFP success). I think the Big Ten will hold together because it is viable and should the PAC 12 discover a way to be relevant again they will as well. It appears to me that this thing is headed for Four Super Conferences right now two of those four are apparent SEC (20’teams) Big Ten (18-20). I believe the Big Ten and the SEC will poach members from the ACC to build those numbers. ND will go Big Ten because they will not want to navigate the SEC type schedule year in and out.
The Big10 is significantly ahead of the ACC in viewership. In fact, in almost every way, except for on-field performance at the playoff level, there is meaningful distance between the B10 and ACC. The SEC was already clearly ahead of the B10 but with the current expansion it is now far far ahead in every meaningful way that I'm aware of. Also, there is no real path to even close the gap other than the addition of ND or the significant progression of some of their existing programs; and that will be difficult to accomplish other than Mich.
IMO, OSU is their only relevant (serious NC contender) program - the SEC now has 4 (Alabama, OU, LSU, UGA) with UF and AU being kind of in the conversation like Wisc & PSU, but with a much better 10-15 year history like Texas than the B10 pair, neither of whom have ever made the BCS nor CFP. UTx made 2 appearance the last being in '09, AU 2 '13, UF 2 NCs '08. Yes, MSU made it in '15 but is now dead. The SEC currently has 8 programs who have made the BCS and/or the CFP, 7 within the last 13 years, 4 within the last 4 years, the B10 2, current ACC 2, P12 3, 2 within last 13 years.
In my mind this is the current pecking order for National Powers. ACC -- Clemson. Big 10 -- Ohio State. Big12 -- none. PAC - Oregon. SEC -- Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma.
While I don't doubt they hold to this grievance that occurred before their grandfathers were born, I question its validity. It's THEIR version of history, but the facts are something else altogether.
The Notre Dame version of history goes like this: we wanted to join the Big 10, and they hated Catholics so we couldn't. And they refused to play us yadda yadda.
MIGHT that be true? Sure, I won't deny it's possible.
Problem is, good luck proving it. The Big 10 schools (of which there were nine when the whole fracas began) had plenty of reasons for opposing Notre Dame that had zip to do with their religion.
1) The academic standards at Notre Dame AT THAT TIME were lower than the Big 10 threshold.
2) Why would Indiana and Purdue want a third team in the state?
3) Why would Northwestern and Chicago want another school in conference so close to Chicago?
4) There was an inner-conference power struggle in the early 1900s that caused Michigan to leave the conference for years with a debate over professional coaches and also whether Big 10 conference rules applied to games against non-Big 10 teams (Michigan wanted to schedule teams like Yale and play by the more lax Eastern rules in those games).
5) The Big 10 rejected Drake, too. Does this mean they hated the Disciples of Christ?
6) When did the Big 10 schools "refuse to play Notre Dame?"
Go look at their schedules. The B1G began in 1895. AT LEAST ONE Big Ten team played the Irish every single year from 1896-1908, and most years at least two did. Michigan and Notre Dame played in 1909, but it wasn't a game against a "Big Ten" team because Michigan withdrew from the Western Conference in a dispute over: a) how many games to play; b) conference rules vs out of conference rules; c) professional coaches.
So Notre Dame didn't play a Big Ten team from 1909-1916, and the first of those years they played a team that WAS in the Big Ten when the schedule was made. Does this mean anti-Catholicism ceased to exist in 1918, when Purdue played Notre Dame? (If I say 1917, folks will say, "Yeah, but Wisconsin is a heavily Catholic state" - to which I'd say, "But the votes were always 9-0 against Notre Dame and every other team not named Nebraska.").
7) If Notre Dame was rejected because of anti-Catholicism, why in the world did the conference reject Nebraska?
8) If there was this so-called anti-Catholicism, why did Notre Dame not only apply and get rejected in 1901 and 1902 BUT ALSO in 1913 when this alleged "the Big Ten won't play Notre Dame" argument was in full force?
Look, I'm not saying it's not POSSIBLE that anti-Catholicism played a role in the rejection of Notre Dame. But given that the original name of Michigan was Catholepistemiad Michigana (and largely pushed for a French Catholic priest) and Wisconsin (in 1910) had over 1/2 million Catholics in a state of 2.3 million. So why were Michigan and Wisconsin in the Big Ten if the anti-Catholic argument holds any water at all?
This whole claim came from Notre Dame's Father Crumley when the Irish got rejected in 1902. Was he right? Maybe. But this whole narrative is questionable at best and downright wrong at worst in my view.
It's amazing to me how much evidence exists for enforced segregation in the Southern USA in the 50s and 60s but not a single shred of evidence exists to support THIS claim.
9) The Big 10 had only eight schools from 1907-1912, Ohio State made it nine in 1913. Michigan rejoined in 1917, the same year the Big 10 began playing the Irish again.
Notre Dame applied and was rejected again in 1917 and 1919. Might this possibly have had to do with the mechanics of setting up a schedule for eleven teams as opposed to ten?
10) This also ignores the role of Michigan Coach Fielding Yost in the whole deal.
Michigan's beef with the Big Ten stemmed from the fact they were a dominant power with a coach who made more money than any of the teachers, which the rest of the Big 10 opposed. It's why they left. They dealt arrogantly with conference members, not showing up at meetings repeatedly, and talking down to folks, particularly Nebraska.
Knute Rockne hated Yost, in part because he always managed to have officials from Michigan work his games. (Now we know why Michigan can't do jack squat).
Notre Dame applied for membership AGAIN in 1926, and got turned down within minutes of the meeting. I'm sure the fact that the guy running the meeting was a Michigan man friendly to Yost probably had something to do with it. Again, the vote was unanimous against Notre Dame.
And who was the loudest against the Irish? Michigan, coached by Yost, and Chicago, coached by Amos Alonzo Stagg. Might the rejection in 1926 have been more of "they're good, we don't want to play them?"
11) The Big Ten nearly split right after that due to shady recruiting.
So....which one would have taken Notre Dame?
(Looks at Notre Dame's schedule for 1910-1916.....Army played them. Navy didn't play them until 1927, and AFA didn't even play football until 1958)
No, but I'm not so sure this narrative isn't about 1% fact and 99% myth. Besides, if Notre Dame had been in the Big Ten and made it a Big 11, they wouldn't have had those radio deals in the 20s that made them legendary or gave Rockne a microphone that he could use against others.
FWIW, McElroy and Kublic were talking about the Noles/Clemson rumor this morning. Apparently it is coming from multiple sources. If the Texas/Okie deal is anything to go by, things could happen really quickly.
Barrett Sallee assured me this wasn't happening.
It's like when Jim Morrison appeared to Wayne in that dream and told him to put on a rock concert in Aurora, Illinois.
Ahhh yes...the all knowing, all seeing Barrett Sallee. You mean the guy that picked Ole Miss to upset Alabama in 2018? The game Bama won 62-7? That guy? The guy that picks up his inside info on the Braves from an "insider" that also washes dishes at a local establishment at The Battery?
Like many we know. Often wrong but never in doubt.
I heard that interview but seems the universities have signed their TV rights over to the ACC until 2032 or something which would put them each in the hole by $3-$400 million...which is a bit of a roadblock.
2036. Although the rate is much cheaper than the SEC's per team rate. Which is also theoretically when these schools are seeking to leave.
If we're talking money, the SEC won't pull even with the Big 10 until the new SEC deal kicks in, in a few years. The Big 10 has long held an advantage, and it is pretty easy to see why if you take a look at this map: https://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/thematic-maps/usa-population-map.html
The Big 10 has a concentration of high population states that coincides with historically powerful football programs. This includes Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State but it isn't limited to that. They lack the heavy investment in low population that the SEC has with two programs in Mississippi for example. So, they've just been well setup to generate a lot of money, and they have. Furthermore, they don't really need more than one title contender. They just need a title contender to stay relevant and they have that.
I would argue one of the real reasons that the SEC and the Big 10 ended up ahead of the other conferences was partly blind luck, but either way the fact that they didn't get bogged down in a single state. The Pac-12 has 4 programs in California, the Big 12 had 4 programs in Texas, and the ACC has 4 programs in the state of North Carolina. While those are all great states to be in, it really limited the ability of those conferences to grow aggressively, in part because it also formed somewhat of a voting bloc as well. For instance Clemson and FSU are a bit resentful of the basketball powers in the ACC. The SEC fortunately had a voting bloc that prevented further redundant expansion, making the conference expand outward. This ultimately was how they started to catch up to the Big 10, it increasing their footprint and earning power.
The Big 10 is still in a fantastic position and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. They basically have to make a bad move to fall behind the SEC.
The very latest is that there is a story circulating that Clemson and Florida State have expressed interest in SEC membership, but the SEC is not convinced they will bring in the amount of revenue required to boost shares per team, due to their relatively low streaming rates (however that's figured). And that according to this source, Notre Dame is the only worthwhile target still remaining out there beyond Texas/Oklahoma.
1) The bully and his Siamese twin decided they wanted into the executive card game, high stakes, etc.
2) The game looks so good that maybe possibly other guys with deep wallets and brains that serve no purpose other than keeping their heads from caving in (well, and Ohio St) want into the game, too.
3) The debate concerns whether the four newcomers really want to come or not.
And now....a word from our sponsor......
But the SEC's money will equal or surpass the B1G shortly. The SEC suffered misfortune, especially bad timing, and/or weak negotiators on the last deal because their money did not match their viewership. It likely will on the next deal.
You keep referring to geographic footprint but that is becoming an outdated metric. Yes, it still matters but not like it did 10 years or so ago. Streaming subscriptions, not cable boxes are becoming the measuring stick.
What does it matter to college football broadcasters if there are 20 million TV viewers in the NYC market when only 700K care about college football? The metrics are changing quickly and for the better. What good does it do to add TCU to the PAC12? Very little, because you don't now have the state of Texas, you have TCU fans - that's about it. As, I mentioned before, if a conf had AU, your logic says that they have the state of Alabama. That is not true - they have AU fans. To add Alabama more than doubles the value of the state of Alabama since Bama fans in the state outnumber AU fans more then 2 to 1 and in Bham more like 2.5 to 1.
Basketball is not a consideration in these talks.
I also disagree that the B1G or any conf for that matter, needs only 1 title contender. They need more to generate more interest both locally and nationally. Alabama draws great nationally for 2 reasons, they are a transcendent program and they have formidable opponents; teams that have a legit chance to beat Ala and have a chance themselves to make the CFP. Even though LSU has only 1 win in the last 10 vs Bama, they were often competitive or at least appeared to have before the game, so the viewership was usually great.
Same with UGA, against whom Bama is 6-0. They have usually been highly ranked and in half of the games had a chance to win and appeared to have in all 6. OU and UTx will only add to that mix. Though for the moment UTx does not contend, their brand is strong and novelty will give them an appeal almost equal to a much better OU, at least for a while. But in all fairness, UTx has a very good chance to get back up. But if they don't, just punching that soft belly for 10 years or so will generate a lot of interest but I can't see them wallowing around like UTn.
Thus, the SEC package will have many more compelling games than OSU and the 13 dwarfs or Clemson and the same. The gap between the SEC and B1G will only widen in the next negotiations. The next few years should be fun in the SEC even if dominated by Alabama because there are so many other brands that should be able to beat them from time to time and everyone will tune in to see if they can.
So, it's much more than geographical footprint. But I guess we both still keep making our same points
. I wonder if the mods mind?
Just personally, I can`t imagine any conference that wouldn`t welcome ND with open arms.
Latest threads
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 4
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
