UCLA and USC WILL Join the B1G in 2024

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
33,475
22,642
287
53
Four all beef patties, 6 feet under: the McCPR
That was the thought I had. It's mostly illusory. Large populations do not = college football eyeballs. I remember that, in my time in NYC, I had to dig to the back of the sports section in the Times to find any info about college football...
I was wondering when someone was going to point this out.

Los Angeles has lost the Raiders, Chargers, and Rams as football teams - and go look at how empty the Coliseum is when USC is a mediocrity. In all honesty, I think it will be VERY difficult going forward to expand the base of college football fans beyond what we have now and their offspring and (maybe) some folks who go to the school.

The story of CFB was - for so long - a story of GROWTH. Let's be honest and admit one of the biggest reasons the Southeast (in particular) became such a rabid fan area for CFB is because the nearest NFL team was 500 miles from Tuscaloosa back in a time before the interstate highway system existed. But you could hear your local school on the radio. The sport kept growing and growing with interest through the dawn of television, the increase in the number of games on TV, and the multiplicity of national championships. Miami, for example, nearly dropped football in the 70s but because of the quirky bowl setup, they won the 1983 national championship and became a huge draw.

We've now eliminated so much of what made the sport appealing. Some of it was inevitable, but in the process of good intentions, it got royally botched. We had entire New Year's Days filled with 2-3 and sometimes four games that had a direct bearing on the championship. For example, in that infamous 1979 Sugar Bowl with the Goal Line Stand, it mattered whether Oklahoma beat Nebraska (and by how much), and it mattered whether USC or Michigan won (and by how much). Fast forward even to 1994 when Penn St got messed over by the polls, and imagine the train wreck if both Nebraska and Penn State had lost.

And that INTEREST generated ratings and more interest.

Polls created interest - so we rendered them fictitious with BCS and then CFP re-ranking.
Bowls created interest - and we made separate bowls the main thing and rendered the rest obsolete.
Colleges had to recruit out of state to compete and travel enabled that - and the system collapsed in favor of the brand names that became hallowed back in the pre-TV days.
Although the redshirt rule needed modification - we introduced free agency, which allows a Jalen Hurts to leave Alabama because he's not the starter and go start at Oklahoma...which collapses the system again in favor of the powerhouses.

A former friend of mine watched the 2013 IB in a bar in Boston, her interest being because he ex-BIL is an Auburn grad. When the horrible ending occurred, most of them didn't even know what the rule was, and their only interest was because:
a) it was two days after Thanksgiving and because most everything closes up there for "religious" reasons, some hadn't been to the bar since Wednesday
b) it was really all that was on sports-wise that day and important - but most didn't even know how important.

I fear where this is headed, but I'm thankful I got the time watching this I did.

I just fail to see how, say, Washington DC is gonna get all excited to see UVA get blown out by UGA.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
32,777
22,606
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Let’s talk practical terms.

Let’s say the Big Ten ends up with USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Notre Dame.

The SEC gets UNC, UVA, Virginia Tech, and Duke to go with OU and Texas.

Do the two power conferences divide into divisions at all? If so is it 2 divisions of 10 or 4 divisions of 5 with a semi-final playoff to the conference championship?
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,111
3,019
187
42
kraizy.rydas.com
I was wondering when someone was going to point this out.

Los Angeles has lost the Raiders, Chargers, and Rams as football teams - and go look at how empty the Coliseum is when USC is a mediocrity.
There is a lot we agree with on general and I think we both have a lot of negativity about the direction things are headed. I've been as resistant to some of the changes to college football as anyone here. Sorry for using your post as an excuse to elaborate on a couple of things.

I'm not trying to argue, just making point than anything else. I covered some of this last page, but it is worth reiterating that the value of markets does not lie entirely on the enthusiasm of the fans. There's no question for instance that college football fans in Tuscaloosa are more engaged than fans in LA. However, the LA fans, even on a per capita basis are still much more valuable. The simplest way to explain this is if a bunch of people in LA start wearing Adidas it could change the fortunes of the company. If a bunch of people in Tuscaloosa? It won't really change anything.

So, the value of the LA market lies in some ways in just how hard it is to crack. If you do it though, you can make billions. So there's always going to be more money flowing in to try to reach them, even if they aren't nearly as enthusiastic. Honestly I'm always disappointed when I'm at an Alabama game and I see what horrible sponsors they have for everything. But, it's Tuscaloosa, what do you expect? Just look at the corporate sponsors for USC football! It's better than the SEC's sponsors.

Brand matters as well, but in a lot of ways the major market aspect is the flip side of that. I would add that you could include the size of a new state you are entering as a third criteria and rate potential additions according to their brand, markets, and if it's a new, large state. It's over simplification but for instance USC is a 3/3, Virginia is a 2/3, NC based on their overall brand is a 3/3 and Clemson is a 1/3.

Thing is you don't want another Nebraska. That's the thing to avoid. Brand is the one thing that can change the fastest, Clemson wasn't a major brand not that long ago, and is Nebraska still a major brand now, or a 0/3 (negative asset)? Either way though, it's about added value and good markets add value.

I just fail to see how, say, Washington DC is gonna get all excited to see UVA get blown out by UGA.
Well in my previous post I delved into how much state lines matter. Washington DC is a special case though, but I've seen all sorts of claims in terms of what school can reach them. In truth it's Maryland territory, but very tepid support even for Maryland. Really it's just another example of how much state lines matter, because the favorite team in Washington DC only enjoys 15% support and that's just about the lowest you'll see anywhere.

To your general point, the population of Virginia is 8.5 million. It isn't though, just about watching Virginia play. That's where I think a lot of people exaggerate the value of the particular school's brand. It's about getting them to watch your conference play! I'm not nearly as big on Virginia as I am on North Carolina, but I do very much believe in the SEC's ability to dominate territory they enter. So I do think once they enter a state they're going to increase the overall popularity of not just that school but the popularity of the conference in that state.

An easy example of this would be that I've watched more Missouri games since they joined the conference than I ever did in all the years leading up to their joining the conference. Why would I care about Missouri? They weren't in the SEC, virtually every game they played didn't matter at all to me. A lot more of them do matter now and I end up watching a lot more of them.

So, why would a Virginia fan watch Alabama more if Virginia is in the conference? It's not just because Virginia is playing Alabama. They might watch Alabama play Tennessee because it influences the standings. Or they might pick another SEC team to become their second favorite and start following them (in particular in years that Virginia is bad, which would be most of them). Or may be they just become SEC fans in general because Virginia is in the conference.

The point though is this never was about just watching Virginia games. It's about getting people in Virginia to watch more SEC games...
 

CrimsonTheory

All-American
Mar 26, 2012
3,363
1,407
187
CrimsonBleedRed
Let's GET crazy. I say SEC should target University of Toronto, Unversite de Montreal, University of British Columbia and University of Ottawa and call it day.

Joking aside, I think Clemson and Miami are definitely two that SEC will go get. Any other teams is up for debate. Just for the lulz, I'd like to see them add either Arizona or ASU and Pittsburgh. Just because.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CajunCrimson

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame
Apr 21, 2008
8,311
2,311
187
Gadsden, Al.
This is like when the North Side (Bugs Moran) and South Side (Al Capone) Gangs lit up Chicago during Prohibition.

Question is - who will be the victims of the St. Sankey's Day Massacre?
The real victims (Strangely Enough, in this case) will be those who do not have a seat at either table. (Mad Max Scenario)
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
32,777
22,606
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I guess the PAC 12 is dead. Of course the Big 12 was dead.

But if Arizona, ASU, Colorado, and Utah join the Big 12, that pretty much assures it. I still say Washington, Oregon, and Stanford end up in the Big Ten. Washington State and Oregon State probably the Mountain West. Cal disbands its football program.

Funny thinking about Utah. Their fans loved rubbing it in BYU’s face that they got that PAC 12 invite and BYU was left out in the cold. Now they’re begging for a spot in the same conference BYU is now in.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: CullmanTide and Con

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB)
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
23,524
11,417
337
Breaux Bridge, La

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,111
3,019
187
42
kraizy.rydas.com

How this affects hoops. But some behind the scenes perspective from a well connected fella.

More cred regarding Clemson, FSU, Tech, and Miami being SEC targets.
Well, some of the stuff is just throwing up something to see what sticks. For instance he says: " Miami and Virginia Tech are reasonable SEC candidates. So on and so forth. "

There's long been this general notion of, let's just rebuild the old Southern conference when people mention expansion targets. The thing is if the SEC adds teams without really expanding their geographic footprint they are going to continue getting curb stomped financially by the Big 10 who seems to better understand how money works.

Having said that, I am worried the SEC is going to get further screwed over by ESPN (who has been perpetually giving them bad deals) and in the case of the info you are providing, one would assume they are willing to negotiate (since the grant of rights deal is signed with them) if it's good for current ratings. The thing is ESPN only has to care about the current deal that the SEC already signed giving ESPN their soul for the forseeable future. They don't have to care about the future of the conference, or even the sport really.

So when those teams get settled in and have played .500 ball long enough for people to realize they don't really care about them? ESPN won't care, they'll get a cheaper deal next time... But, the SEC is in a bad position having already signed the deal which has already aged poorly, so what can they do other than tell ESPN to take a hike.

My hope is that the SEC can hold firm on some sort of logical expansion that is actually an expansion and not just doubling down on territory they already control.
 

Latest threads

Amazon Prime / TideFans.shop


Your purchase through our Amazon affiliation and TideFans.shop links helps support the site! Thanks!