Interesting update from this past week & weekend... can't say that I'm jumping for joy! The Dude of WVU's Blog...
Without knowing the $$$$ involved, I would never deal with ND as if they were doing the Big 12 a favor by associating with it. I would go for reliable, desirable "equals" (like the ACC schools mentioned) to build the conference and let ND realize what is best for them at that point. At this time, it seems the B12 is going after ND as if they are the end-all of the football world. Maybe they are from a future TV contract standpoint but I don't believe it is justified. Right now, I would trade a sure FSU and Clemson (or GT, which I prefer over Clemson) for an ND partial affiliation and possible future full membership and never look back. In fact, I would let ND fade away until they came to ask for full membership. I'd love for the B12 to stay at 10 teams indefinitely but it appears the $$$ says go to 12 or more and if you are going to do it eventually, go for it now while you have some influence and not be left picking up scraps. Here's a question - Does having a 12 team or larger conference with a conf championship game really help a conference under the scenario that the BCS is going to a 4 team playoff based on selection criteria? Obviously depends on the criteria. Does a 10 team conference have any advantage?
just like every other conference thats trying to expand its not about wins and losses, its about tv ratings and money.... why else would the sec add the gaggies and missu... they arnt top football programs but they ad regions that they didnt have. thats why texas isnt looking at miami and fsu. Clemson adds a whole state. for one i would like to see ND. i know its not your parents ND but they are willing to spend money on there program and as long as you do that your program will recover at some point.. just look at our football program of the late 90's and you can see that
Geez, I believe he meant that going after a Miami/FSU combo only adds Florida whereas a clemson/FSU combo adds 2 states. My first thought was the same as yours but I reread it and took a different meaning. Considering the TV markets, I am surprised GT doesn't get more love. Sitting right in Atlanta which is 4x the size of Columbia and many times the size of Clemson, SC. Georgia has twice the population of SC. GT has better academics than Clemson if that is important. Only detriment I see is having the Falcons in the same city. And Clemson draws better home crowds by a good margin. But Clemson is out in the boonies. Sorry, I don't have the breakdown of viewers per state. Come on! Show some love for the "Rambling Wreck".
also, GT is an AAU school (speaking of academics) which was what everyone was talking about last year when realignment talks were coming around with aggy and mizzou leaving (both aau schools as well). they joined in 2010. i agree with GT over clemson. also, geographically, it's closer (not by much) and easier to get to because of the huge airport.
Just because a university is in a particular state and city doesn't mean they will attract an audience. Like SEC picking up UH thinking it would bring them TV ratings in the state of Texas and Houston specifically, GT won't bring eyeballs in Atlanta. Fans in big cities graduate from a variety of universities in the area and the traditional winners attract eyeballs in neighboring states. FSU and Clemson draw more fans from GA and Atlanta than GT does because they are winners. And big schools. Clemson will attract eyeballs in both SC and GA because successful graduates of Clemson abandon SC and move to Atlanta, where they then watch football on TV. Same goes for Maryland. Just because they sit in the midst of Washington, DC doesn't mean anyone watches them on TV regardless of who they play. If Texas played UMD, it wouldn't bring any more viewers to TVs in Washington than if they played Boise St. OK, maybe a few more, but not enough to make you want to bring them into the conference to pick up the TV market. I know more VT fans here that are passionate about football than I know UMD fans. So, if yo are going to expand, bring in successful programs from diverse regions of the country rather than trying to cherry pick schools by the city they happen to sit in. That will be the winning plan.
Maryland, I understand your argument but disagree with you in this case for a couple reasons. First, GT is actually larger than Clemson in enrollment by about 3000 students (20k vs 17k). I would be inclined to believe more GT grads stay around Atlanta and Georgia than Clemson grads heading to Atlanta. GT's competition for college football viewers is bound to be UGa not Clemson just as Clemson's competition for viewers is SC not GT. I do not have any hard data about GT vs Clemson viewers in Atlanta/GA and SC. Just a gut feel thing and a personal preference. Second, over the last decade, GT is very much the equal to FSU and Clemson regarding football. Clemson has been very up and down in football success and FSU really hasn't outperformed its rivals since the mid 90's. Another factor that is hard to evaluate is fan fervor. My gut tells me Clemson fans are more dedicated. As mentioned by others, ATL also is much more accessible and accommodating to travelers than Clemson, SC. My preference remains FSU with GT over Clemson. If the B12 was going past 12 members, Pitt would be my #13. Clemson would be my #14, . Any combo of ND, Maryland, Louisville, UVa and VT would suit me to fill out to 16 teams. Also, while checking a few numbers, I learned that Clemson's history is similar to TAMU's regarding locale, disciplines and military involvement. I am not saying this is good or bad. I'm just saying! The Link
i agree.. if you want a great conference go with winning programs... but if that were true wtf is colorado doing in the pac-12 and boise has to go all the way to the big east (which i predict they dont). it comes down to it $$$$ Denver is # 17 in city television rating where boise isnt even in the top 100.... but to argue against my self... GT(atlanta#9), Clemson#37, FSU #106. I would believe FSU has a much larger national pull though
Awww ****! The comment about trying to ensure ND plays a certain number of games at B12 sites makes me nervous. My cynical side smells a preferential ND agreement where they do not have to be "equal" to existing B12 members. The hell with affiliation. Get on board or get the hell out of the way. It also sounds like if it isn't ND, then the B12 will remain at 10 which doesn't hurt my feelings at all. Also, ESPN's College Football Live just reported that ND has decided to NOT try to modify (lengthen) their current TV contract leaving them room to negotiate a new deal down the road with whoever they want.
i believe this will be equaled out with the traditional games that nd plays every year. USC, Mich, Mich ST...
Thanks, Maryland, for your insights. Always good to get the perspective of someone familiar with teams/locations/etc. My comment about TAMU was just a wiseass comment not really intended as part of our discussion. I had no idea about the Clemson history. I preferred that A&M (and Mizzou and Neb, for that matter, CU not so much) stay in the Big 12 and don't resent their leaving for what they feel is greener pastures. Regarding VT, I knew of their agriculture/mech basis but was unaware of their Corps of Cadets background. I don't remember that being as significant part of their student life as it was/is at TAMU but my only exposure is from televised games. I think VT would be a great addition to the conference and a good partner for WVU but I got the impression from comments on HornFans and various articles that VT and UVa are tied at the hip and not likely to leave the ACC. Actually, adding VT and UVa doesn't sound so bad to me along with FSU, GT, Clemson and a 16th team (ND, Pitt, Louisville). As it appears right now, all this conjecture is wasted effort. Seems like it will be ND, if anybody.
I've been out of pocket for the last few days...has anybody posted on the expansion committee's teleconference earlier in the week, and whether anything has come of it. I keep seeing that the Big XII seems all in on ND, and I hate that if it means to the exclusion of FSU, Clemson, and some other schools I'd care about a whole lot more than the Irish.
Interesting fact about Clemson: "During World War II, Clemson supplied more Army officers than any other institution except West Point and Texas A&M." Clemson went civilian in 1955 but ROTC was mandatory for freshmen and sophomores until 1969. This is why most of us are unfamiliar with their military tradition. Also, SC has a much more well known military academy that continues today in Charleston with The Citadel, which was partially responsible for Auburn missing out on the MNC game several years ago due to their match-up being less than SoS enhancing. I wonder what Patton and Rome had to say about their cadets??? As for VT, they are in a similar situation with Virginia Military Institute (VMI) being far more well known than VT's Corps of Cadets. VT's Corps became voluntary in 1964, a year after this happened at Texas A&M. However, VT and Texas A&M remain the only 2 civilian universities with a full-time military corps. VT actually has 2 bands that perform during football games, the Corps of Cadets band known as the "Highty-Tighties" and a regular civilian marching band.
So, how does the new 12-year deal with the ACC and Orange Bowl affect FSU, Clemson, and GT leaving to go to the Big 12? And, ND? Seems like it could change things perception-wise. Here's The Link
I dont' know if the Orange bowl changes much. Fla State still has the 3rd tier rights issues with the ACC. This does nothing to alleviate that problem
The agreement probably makes the $$$ a little better for all the ACC teams by guaranteeing annual Orange Bowl revenues but I don't know the amounts involved or the split so it is hard to tell if it would affect a team's decision regarding staying in the ACC or leaving.
I don't think a lot of FSU fans care about the new Orange Bowl deal. The mood on a couple of their boards seems to favor the 'Noles leaving the ACC, although the Big XII seems to be their second-favored destination to the SEC. I think the whole discussion is a moot point now...I'm getting a hunch that the Big XII is NOT going to expand this year, barring some kind of deal with Notre Dame. It strikes me as a shame to have the chance to add two solid teams like FSU and Clemson, and to sit at ten teams instead. I think that ultimately the Big XII will get back to twelve teams, but probably not add two teams of the same quality as FSU and Clemson.
It will be a major faux pas if the Big 12 misses on Florida State. Let's see what develops this July.
I hope you're right X, but if the conference is gonna make a move involving FSU, they're keeping it WAAAAAAAY behind closed doors. They're also getting tight timewise, since the 'Noles would have to make their moves, including notifying the ACC by August 15th, to avoid paying out anything more than the existing exit fee. I'd just hate to see the Big XII do something as foolish as passing on FSU.
If I were and FSU or Clemson fan, I would sure prefer the SEC. Regional rivals, less travel, premier conference, top $$$$, top shelf competition, etc..... However, I am not sure those two are the top SEC choices for a 16 team conference. Neither Clemson or FSU add much footprint from a TV standpoint. Plus there is the "gentleman's" agreement to not add schools in states that already have an SEC member... UF and South Carolina might veto these additions. But as we all know, it is all about the $$$$$$$$$. Would adding schools from other states (UNC?, VT?, ???) provide a better TV deal than adding in-state schools such as FSU and Clemson, or GT or Miami or UT? I would suspect that adding UT and OU would be a better choice than FSU and Clemson but wouldn't TAMU exercise its "gentleman's" veto assuming it obtained that right when it joined the SEC. If vetoes exist, wouldn't a package of OU and UNC or VT be the best way to fill out the SEC? Of course, you still have those nagging OU/OkSt and VT/UVA in-state ties that might thwart such a move. When you cut through all the crap, I agree with the above that the Big12 is going to stay at 10 teams unless ND is persuaded to give up its independence. I don't think they need to with the new BCS playoff setup so the Big12 will remain mathematically challenged at 10 teams.
There's a part of me that would love for UT to talk to Slive, just to whiz agricultural off and show them that they don't have any veto power where UT is concerned. However, there's a big part of me that doesn't want UT to have anything to do with any conference that would take in the ag school.
