Started By
Message
re: Virginia to the SEC? What do they bring to the table?
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:12 pm to USMC Gators
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:12 pm to USMC Gators
quote:
My choices would be Clemson and FSU, but that's obviously not realistic.
The reason it's not "realistic" lies with the consumers - US.
If WE demand what teams we want in the conference, you'd think there would be some consideration for the 'market' supplying the demand. But once we buy into the propaganda that the SEC front office puts out about money and academic presitige, then we don't express our true market demands, and we let the supplier dictate to us what we 'want'.
Those are the two schools I would most want to see join the conference as well. These two also make an ENORMOUS amount of sense when you strictly look at the entertainment value to the fan: Athletic, regional, rivalry considerations make for entertaining matchups that we can easily travel to.
UVA? Mizzou? Those make absolutely NO sense from an fan entertainment perspective. I don't doubt that these are EXCELLENT academic institutions that I might consider for furthering my own education. But I use different criteria for judging the entertainment value to me rather than the educational value.
3
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:12 pm to USMC Gators
quote:
UNC and NCSU.
no way Slive takes to North Carolina schools ... what are you trying to do, rob the SEC. UNC + Virgina school makes the most sense but more importantly it makes the most $$$$$$$$$$.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:14 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
now you are calling the realities of conference expansion propaganda?
really?
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:22 pm to aggressor
quote:
In short, schools like UVA and UNC truly ADD something new to the SEC.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:29 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
Incorrect.
I'm sorry, but Delaney has already indicated as much. He doesn't think it's fair for his STUDENT/athletes to compete against athletes who have no academic standing.
quote:
Making it tougher for your athletes does nothing for academic reputation.
Neither does beating the pants off of an AAU school every Saturday of autumn. But I would also disagree for the obvious reason that the athletes generally represent your poorest performing students with regards to entrance exams and completing their degree requirements. Raise the bottom, and you raise the mean.
quote:
The schools have to want to improve their academic reputation and that is done by raising the standards for all incoming students and improving the quality of the education they receive overall.
That's exactly my point. You don't improve your academic standing simply by association.
LSU's problem isn't that they play sports against MSU and Ole Miss, LSU's probnlem is that the people of Louisiana would rather donate millions to the AD and not the endowment, as well as the fiscal restrictions placed on the university by the state legislature.
Having UVA in Tiger Stadium once every ten years or so isn't going to make Louisianians any smarter. I wish it would, but it won't.
Look at Tulane. They left the conference over similar concerns in the 60s. They embarked on an independent campign which failed miserably. Eventually they joined another conference, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, they created a program associated with the university, but with lower academic standards that allow some of the more gifted athletes/less scholarly students to compete for them. Has that affected their academic reputation nationally? It doesn't seem to have. The Ivy League began in the 50s for similar reasons, but they were unwilling to compromise their academic reputation by extending athletic scholarships to students that wouldn't otherwise be accepted. So they got rid of athletic scholarships altogether.
When one of your athletes is interviewed on national TV after a game and cannot speak proper english, THAT is where your national reputation as an academic institution suffers.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
UVA? Mizzou? Those make absolutely NO sense from an fan entertainment perspective. I don't doubt that these are EXCELLENT academic institutions that I might consider for furthering my own education. But I use different criteria for judging the entertainment value to me rather than the educational value.
The current market demographic of the SEC is not what's driving conference realignment. It's new markets, new demographics. I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or if it comes naturally.
The SEC isn't expanding to make LSU fans more excited about the conference.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:35 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Hey Wild Tchop...
Off topic, but are with the Tribe or just a fan of the album?
Off topic, but are with the Tribe or just a fan of the album?
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:36 pm to aggressor
My problem is that no one can adequately convey exactly what the CIC is -- although one can easily read about the reality of it online(if you step outside of the "B1G is best" bubble).
The B1G would have you believe the CIC itself is a research behemoth that is granted HUGE research money(which makes athletics money look like peas in the bucket) -- which is then divided among the member institutions hence it ONLY makes financial sense to join the B1G -- when NOTHING could be further from the truth.
It's really a collaboration of research universities to share library, faculty, research, technology, etc. That's it. The CIC itself has no money -- and is granted no money. ALL of that monster money figure is granted to the individual institutions making up the membership -- and I've YET to see how simple membership actually improves or changes research funding to an individual institution. Does it make them more efficient with money granted? Certainly...
Rutgers to CIC does not mention ANY additional research funding expected to head their way.
Maryland makes no mention of expected additional research funding either.
The B1G would have you believe the CIC itself is a research behemoth that is granted HUGE research money(which makes athletics money look like peas in the bucket) -- which is then divided among the member institutions hence it ONLY makes financial sense to join the B1G -- when NOTHING could be further from the truth.
It's really a collaboration of research universities to share library, faculty, research, technology, etc. That's it. The CIC itself has no money -- and is granted no money. ALL of that monster money figure is granted to the individual institutions making up the membership -- and I've YET to see how simple membership actually improves or changes research funding to an individual institution. Does it make them more efficient with money granted? Certainly...
Rutgers to CIC does not mention ANY additional research funding expected to head their way.
Maryland makes no mention of expected additional research funding either.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:36 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I really don't think you get this.
Example Clemson(IMO the most SEC ready school out there)
If we were to add Clemson to the SEC it would cut into our money as a whole. This money given evenly to all SEC schools comes from our TV rights and deals through the SEC network & ESPN. The reason why they money is decreased is because as of right now the state of South Carolina already has an SEC team with USCe. If one wants to watch a SEC ball they already have been exposed to it by USCe being there. Now we add Clemson the exposure gained does not quantify nor qualify for the money that the SEC has to pay them for being in the conference.
Where as if we were to take a team from North Carolina or Virginia, two states that neither have an SEC footprint, therefore zero exposure. By adding one of these teams you are able to increase that footprint and BRING IN NEW VIEWERS to watch the SEC NETWORK or ESPN those allowing us to increase the $$$ demanded in the TV rights & deals. In doing this our total revenue, money pot, increases and with this increase the schools themselves make more money. Which is not the case by adding a school from the state as another SEC school.
At the end of the day it is about money and the way to make money in this business is to attract more viewerships and to do this with have to expand our markets. Yes would we like to see teams like Clemson and FSU but to be honest I'd rather have schools that added the money to my school and also be a potential win in the future for my school as well.
And finally if you don't see the benefit of adding academic institutions like UVA & UNC you have to be a sidewalk fan or completely unrealistic to the point that you want what you want and to hell with everyone else.
Example Clemson(IMO the most SEC ready school out there)
If we were to add Clemson to the SEC it would cut into our money as a whole. This money given evenly to all SEC schools comes from our TV rights and deals through the SEC network & ESPN. The reason why they money is decreased is because as of right now the state of South Carolina already has an SEC team with USCe. If one wants to watch a SEC ball they already have been exposed to it by USCe being there. Now we add Clemson the exposure gained does not quantify nor qualify for the money that the SEC has to pay them for being in the conference.
Where as if we were to take a team from North Carolina or Virginia, two states that neither have an SEC footprint, therefore zero exposure. By adding one of these teams you are able to increase that footprint and BRING IN NEW VIEWERS to watch the SEC NETWORK or ESPN those allowing us to increase the $$$ demanded in the TV rights & deals. In doing this our total revenue, money pot, increases and with this increase the schools themselves make more money. Which is not the case by adding a school from the state as another SEC school.
At the end of the day it is about money and the way to make money in this business is to attract more viewerships and to do this with have to expand our markets. Yes would we like to see teams like Clemson and FSU but to be honest I'd rather have schools that added the money to my school and also be a potential win in the future for my school as well.
And finally if you don't see the benefit of adding academic institutions like UVA & UNC you have to be a sidewalk fan or completely unrealistic to the point that you want what you want and to hell with everyone else.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 1:39 pm to Dr RC
quote:
now you are calling the realities of conference expansion propaganda? really?
There's a marketplace, consumers, producers and a product.
Why do consumers have to be told what they want in the marketplace? Why don't the producers gage the demand, and supply the product accordingly?
Yes, accepting a school based on its AAU credentials does NOTHING for the academics of LSU. I don't care WHAT the commissioner says.
It's all just entertainment.
Keep in mind I'm NOT saying I don't want AAU schools in the SEC. A&M was a PERFECT fit, imo, and their academics are a BONUS on top of their athletic/regional/rivalry fit in the conference. I just think it's silly to think that academics is in any way driving this bus.
It's a business, they're trying to give us minimum product for maximum revenues. In this case matchups that are of minimum entertainment value, but maximum dollar value. Since I'm interested in the entertainment side of the equation, and will NEVER realize any personal financial gain, I don't let financial concerns influence who I would like to see playing in Tiger Stadium.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:02 pm to McRebel42
quote:
I really don't think you get this.
Oh, frick.
Of COURSE I get all the money, money, money, academics, academics, academics bullshite.
I don't think YOU get what I'M trying to say.
College sports is entertainment for me. When considering who I want to see playing aginst LSU, I consider ENTERTAINMENT value.
I don't make any money from the member institutions, therefore that is not a consideration for ME.
Do I understand why Slive wants to water down the product and minimize the entertainment value? Yes: $.
quote:
At the end of the day it is about money
Not for ME it isn't. At the end of the day FOR ME, it's about the entertainment value of the product. I've already found myself becoming less and less interested in LSU football, for example, since the proliferation of IAA teams coming to town. I actually want to see entertaining games, and could really care less about championships. The more games LSU wins against quality opponents, the more entertained I am. If they win them all, the more likely a championship is.
quote:
And finally if you don't see the benefit of adding academic institutions like UVA & UNC you have to be a sidewalk fan or completely unrealistic to the point that you want what you want and to hell with everyone else.
You want to improve the academic reputation of the SEC? How about we kick out the Mississippi schools? Problem fricking solved.
I want REAL academic reform at my alma mater, not window dressing from an athletic conference CEO.
And no, Ole Miss will not be a magically better school for losing to A&M and UVA in all sports on a regular basis.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:04 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Why can you not understand that the money made from SECN is needed to keep the SEC teams above the rest of the other conferences long term?
that directly impacts your entertainment value.
that directly impacts your entertainment value.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:07 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Most of the consumers have no affiliation with nor did they attend the university. Their only support of the university is on Saturday. It's nice to be a fan and buy shirts and tickets but all they are supporting is the athletic department.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:11 pm to Dr RC
quote:
Why can you not understand that the money made from SECN is needed to keep the SEC teams above the rest of the other conferences long term?
Because it hasn't been proven to me.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:11 pm to engie
quote:
It's really a collaboration of research universities to share library, faculty, research, technology, etc. That's it. The CIC itself has no money -- and is granted no money. ALL of that monster money figure is granted to the individual institutions making up the membership -- and I've YET to see how simple membership actually improves or changes research funding to an individual institution. Does it make them more efficient with money granted? Certainly...
Your first sentence is at least a partial answer to your question.
Having better facilities and collaborations puts your institution in a better position to receive more funding (because you will be able to make better use of the funds you receive).
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:13 pm to molsusports
This topic is an IQ test.
If you don't think UNC and Virginia are perfect ways to fill out the SEC, your IQ is below the idiot threshold.
If you don't get why Virginia is a better pick than VT, you're lost.
If you don't think UNC and Virginia are perfect ways to fill out the SEC, your IQ is below the idiot threshold.
If you don't get why Virginia is a better pick than VT, you're lost.
This post was edited on 4/2/13 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:18 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
Most of the consumers have no affiliation with nor did they attend the university. Their only support of the university is on Saturday. It's nice to be a fan and buy shirts and tickets but all they are supporting is the athletic department.
Yep, it's like the AD isn't even a part of the university. It's funny how much the sidewalk fans LOVE LSU, but yet think college is just where they grow all them damned liberals.
The love for LSU in our state is quite ironic considering the condition of our educational system.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:20 pm to mograyback
quote:
This topic is an IQ test.
If you don't think UNC and Virginia are perfect ways to fill out the SEC, your IQ is below the idiot threshold.
If you don't get why Virginia is a better pick than Missouri, you're lost.
Posted on 4/2/13 at 2:30 pm to the808bass
quote:
The current market demographic of the SEC is not what's driving conference realignment. It's new markets, new demographics. I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or if it comes naturally.
So this is what it comes down to, if I state what I would find more entertaining, I am being obtuse?
quote:
It's new markets, new demographics.
Great, lets' go after UCLA and Rutgers.
quote:
The SEC isn't expanding to make LSU fans more excited about the conference.
- Missouri Fan
Well, DUH.
I'll say this, it would make more economic sense to bring in UVA or UNC than it did to bring in Missouri. And I'd get more excited about them joining than Missouri. Hell, I'd have been more excited to see V-Tech join with A&M than Missouri.
If I were a Missouri fan, I'd pretty much be sitting this one out. So far the only thing Mizzou has brought to the table is fodder.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News