Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:10 pm to BuckI
Finebaum also said last week that OU and Texas was the better move.
Are you surprised he talks out of both sides of his mouth?
But he's said the SEC expansion was the more impressive move and has reiterated several times.
That's most likely how he feels.
Are you surprised he talks out of both sides of his mouth?
But he's said the SEC expansion was the more impressive move and has reiterated several times.
That's most likely how he feels.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:15 pm to Prof
Go back to 2009 and the Blair Report.
B1G wanted Notre Dame and Texas
SEC wanted Oklahoma and Texas A&M if the B1G got ND and Utx
Instead, Notre Dame went partially to the ACC and Utx stayed in the B12 with the LHN
OU chose to stay with Utx and SEC needed a 2nd with TAMU so we got Mizzou
In 2009, the B12 was #2 behind the SEC but with the PAC getting the Buffs and the B1G getting Nebraska that damaged the B12. If they had picked up UL + UC + Pitt + WVU right then they probably wind up in good shape as that would have killed the ACC and created a bridge to the East instead of adding TCU (already had state of TX) and leaving WVU by itself as an island.
With TAMU and MU in the SEC, Buffs in PAC, and Nebraska in the B1G they never really recovered and moving to the SEC was probably the smart move at this time and in the future.
ACC went from dead to possibly being the 2nd strongest conference now, who would have predicted that?
B1G wanted Notre Dame and Texas
SEC wanted Oklahoma and Texas A&M if the B1G got ND and Utx
Instead, Notre Dame went partially to the ACC and Utx stayed in the B12 with the LHN
OU chose to stay with Utx and SEC needed a 2nd with TAMU so we got Mizzou
In 2009, the B12 was #2 behind the SEC but with the PAC getting the Buffs and the B1G getting Nebraska that damaged the B12. If they had picked up UL + UC + Pitt + WVU right then they probably wind up in good shape as that would have killed the ACC and created a bridge to the East instead of adding TCU (already had state of TX) and leaving WVU by itself as an island.
With TAMU and MU in the SEC, Buffs in PAC, and Nebraska in the B1G they never really recovered and moving to the SEC was probably the smart move at this time and in the future.
ACC went from dead to possibly being the 2nd strongest conference now, who would have predicted that?
This post was edited on 7/23/22 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:17 pm to secuniversity
He tells you guys what you want to hear. Sorta like TRump. But when he is outside of his circles, then you will hear what he really thinks.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:17 pm to BuckI
quote:
Not sure why you guys keep bringing up Rutgers when you have Vanderbilt
Look every conference has there ‘ weaker’ members, I understand that. But that’s not the point.
Here you have an addition where some MBA looked purely at TV numbers and said ‘go for it.’ Fine.
So we will see what happens when you add two schools, neither which are slouches of course, that have absolutely no geographic proximity, tradition, history, culture, etc.-all stuff Vandy brings to the table - to another conference.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:23 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
that game won’t start that late.
it’s be a prime time slot.
7pm ET (4 PT)
USC vs Rutgers? that might be a 9pm start.
This was a big reason for UCLA and USC moving was to get better exposure with earlier games.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:25 pm to BuckI
Will UCLA join? UC regents are investigating the decision.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:25 pm to BuckI
quote:
Paul Finebaum: USC, UCLA to Big Ten better move than Oklahoma, Texas to SEC
OK.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:30 pm to biclops
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:30 pm to RelentlessTide
quote:
Will UCLA join? UC regents are investigating the decision.
I've been watching this and I can understand his frustration but I doubt there is anything he can do. I believe he knows this but is just trying to make political hay. Perhaps he thinks he can leverage Cal a spot in the B1G but this isn't the ACC, the B1G doesn't work that way. I guess we will see.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:34 pm to BuckI
quote:
this isn't the ACC
During the CFP and BCS period the big 10 has fewer national championships than the ACC
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:36 pm to BuckI
This isn’t hard to figure out. The big 10 is not introducing college football to an underserved market. It is simply a rebranding for the LA schools. The people who already cared about those schools’ football teams are still going to watch. The people who don’t, won’t.
So the question is not “how big is the market?” The question is what is “market size times market share?” For example, adding Rutgers gave the big 10 the New York market, but it likely changed the viewership numbers minimally. While USC and UCLA aren’t Rutgers, big 10 just doubled down on an area that doesn’t care all that much about college football. Whereas Texas and Oklahoma give mighty shits about college football. I’m happy with the SEC’s additions from an expansion standpoint. The SEC has nothing to fear from the big 10+LA.
So the question is not “how big is the market?” The question is what is “market size times market share?” For example, adding Rutgers gave the big 10 the New York market, but it likely changed the viewership numbers minimally. While USC and UCLA aren’t Rutgers, big 10 just doubled down on an area that doesn’t care all that much about college football. Whereas Texas and Oklahoma give mighty shits about college football. I’m happy with the SEC’s additions from an expansion standpoint. The SEC has nothing to fear from the big 10+LA.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:38 pm to RelentlessTide
That should help the ACC when the B1G raids them.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:42 pm to BuckI
Don't really give a shite to be honest.
The SEC could have added nobody and the Big10 could have added all 4 of them, and the SEC would still have been the superior product.
And I don't see where Oklahoma or Texas is making things worse as it pertains to this topic.
The SEC could have added nobody and the Big10 could have added all 4 of them, and the SEC would still have been the superior product.
And I don't see where Oklahoma or Texas is making things worse as it pertains to this topic.
This post was edited on 7/23/22 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:42 pm to bulletprooftiger
A strong USC with the B1G brand changes everything in LA. So don't confuse them with Rutgers. Who can be a player if they invest and make the right hires.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:43 pm to BuckI
quote:
A strong USC with the B1G brand changes everything in LA. So don't confuse them with Rutgers. Who can be a player if they invest and make the right hires.
Changes what?
What the frick is the competition here, and why should anyone remotely give a frick?
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:44 pm to BuckI
quote:
Perhaps he thinks he can leverage Cal a spot in the B1G but this isn't the ACC
You are correct, ACC was dead when the 2010 realignment started and have really been the big winners
B1G has been a bigger loser
+ Nebraska, but they will be the next Penn State or Michigan State
+ Rutgers, bad for Knights, but good for UM and tOSU recruiting
+ Maryland, if Terps had stayed they would be better off now
+ UCLA
+ USC
Will help UM and tOSU recruit in the west but will make UCLA and USC the island WVU has become in the B12.
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:48 pm to BuckI
USC/UCLA to the Big Ten is a much better get than UT/OU because it takes the big ten coast to coast.
SEC already had aTm.
OU is in a small podunk state.
Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand business.
SEC is still regional, already head Texas, and added tiny little Oklahoma?
That doesn't even compare to grabbing L.A. and the largest state in the country (along with having teams from New Jersey/Maryland to Los Angeles).
But hey, you added that giant Norman OK market
SEC already had aTm.
OU is in a small podunk state.
Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand business.
SEC is still regional, already head Texas, and added tiny little Oklahoma?
That doesn't even compare to grabbing L.A. and the largest state in the country (along with having teams from New Jersey/Maryland to Los Angeles).
But hey, you added that giant Norman OK market
This post was edited on 7/23/22 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:50 pm to Hawkeye here
quote:
OU is in a small podunk state
Iowa
Posted on 7/23/22 at 1:53 pm to Scoob
quote:
I think someone touched upon this awhile back; the SoCal market is enormous, and if you can absorb that population into your Big 10 Network subscription area, it's a big deal.
Like they said in the post- it isn't about number of TVs watching, it's about number of cable subscriptions, which now suddenlyquote:Two teams in SoCal, means probably all the providers will add it.
happen to have the Big Ten Network added for a dollar a month.
They can have the Big Ten network removed and not pay the dollar.
Page 5 of 14
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News