Should the SEC poach the ACC?

Is there opportunity here?

Yesterday, I wrote about SEC Expansion and Virginia Tech.  I'll admit it, there are some good reasons for the SEC to look at FSU or Clemson.  Both are well within the current footprint of the conference.  Both have regularly scheduled match ups with current members, plus longstanding rivalries with other members.  Both have strong athletic programs.  Academics?  Well, Clemson is very strong....

However, Slive would have to fight a very tough battle with Georgia and Florida on FSU, Georgia and South Carolina on Clemson.   I'd be unhappy with either.

Then there is Tech. There could be some good reasons for the conference to think about Georgia Tech, but the only one I can come up with is academics.  Georgia has a strong hold on the Atlanta TV market, as does UF, Auburn, Alabama, and Tennessee, for that matter.  They don't bring anything new to the table for athletics, other than a cute offense in football (before you flame me, I know they are a pretty good athletic department, and Mossad could learn a thing or two from them about information control).  I guess if you were choosing between South Florida and Tech, Tech is an easy choice, but I'd consider Tech about even with NC State, if NC State were the only choice.

But North Carolina State isn't.

Could the SEC make a move for UNC, Duke and NC State?  It gets them into a two growing large markets.  It brings decent football from two schools.  It bring two top flight academic institutions and when you add the four with Texas A&M, it is a huge academic boost.  It would put the SEC even with the Big East in the national basketball discussion, meaning a renegotiation of the TV package (for comparison sake, the ACC just signed a 12 year, 1.86 billion deal with ESPN, comparable to the SEC's per year deal).  It would cripple the conference of the in-state rivals of three members. 

Imagine at least 5-7 more basketball games and all conference tourney games on national TV. Before you start on UNC would never leave the ACC, did you think Nebraska would leave the Big 12?  Given a choice between being a possible non-BCS school (especially with the shenanigans at Miami) or moving to a better long term option with the three schools they are most closely tied to, and getting the money that comes with a move to the SEC?  Not a stretch.  NC State would move in a heart beat, too.

Strangely enough, the sticking point might be Duke's faculty living with a move to the unwashed academic masses of the SEC. Currently, the median USNews ranking in the ACC is 34.5, with FSU's 111 taking up the rear. The SEC's median is in the high 90s, with unranked Ole Miss and Mississippi State bringing up the rear.  That isn't an insubstantial consideration for Duke's faculty and academic reputation.

Hey, I grant North Carolina has their own issues with the NCAA, something that would be the source of multiple jokes if they come to the SEC.  I also grant this isn't the football marriage some might be dreaming of.  But again, if the option is TAMU plus FSU/VaTech/Clemson or TAMU plus Duke/UNC/NCState, I am pretty sure I know which one Slive will have the public and private consensus for.

I'd also consider Louisville a nice backup contender if the conference only goes to 14 schools.  Their basketball would help.  The football isn't good again, but they could help push the brand into the Midwest some.  Plus, Kentucky doesn't seem too upset over building a deeper rivalry with someone they can be a bit more competitive with.  However, I think Louisville is one of those ask before we ask Directional Florida to balance the conference deals.

As a final point, I will say that there are significant psychological downsides to taking in three ACC schools.  But if Slive can't convince Texas and the Oklahoma schools to join, these three make the most sense to me to get to 16 members. If it is Va Tech and Louisville, you just about have to get a Texas or Oklahoma with TAMU (which I just don't think will happen without Okie State) to build out to 16.

What if TAMU decides to stay? Can the SEC move on VaTech and the three North Carolina schools and make it work? I don't know.

I guess the real question is will the SEC be the first to make a move to 16 teams.

Who Would the SEC Target from the East?

I am still not convinced the SEC will expand...yet.  As I pointed out, this could be a move by TAMU to get Texas and the Big 12 a bit closer to even.  Not saying it will work, but it could be going down like this.  Also, the SEC won't likely move without a very good idea about who will balance the conference, and a better idea if it'll be 14 or 16 now.  And when 16 will happen.

The last time Mike Slive did something that wasn't planned to the barest detail, he was born a day early, although he did that on purpose.  As PWD put it to me, the conference presidents are strategic people.  They won't just jump on Texas A&M just because they can.  There are only three programs out there that I see as legit Napoleon Battle Plan types (show up and see what happens, making it worth moving to 13 schools without a 14th): Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma. 

So, we've all debated the merits of pursuing Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, and Okie State. Notre Dame ain't coming. What if Slive and the Presidents are looking East?

If TAMU wants to come, great.  I don't think Slive will ask until the SEC has a very good idea who the 14 (and possibly 15 and 16 will be).  Slive knows the first dude in line has to load up the plate or some of the tastier morsels will be gone from the buffet.  The SEC can't/won't chance just getting TAMU and hoping to add a solid 14th, then get stuck with A) some random school that doesn't fit strategically, or B) Slive being forced to jam an in-state competitor school down a current member's throat.  Before you get all "adding FSU hurts Florida, which is good for Georgia," remember FSU hurts Georgia in recruiting plenty.  Same goes for Clemson.

So that leaves us with Virginia Tech, right?  Not a bad pick: strong academics, to satisfy those that would worry about such things; good athletics, to help with the product that brings the money in.  Strong DC area alumni base, getting the conference some access there (although DC is not a college football town; I'd equate it with Philadelphia in that it is much more a pro-football, college basketball town).  There is the pesky issue of UVa, as the Virginia Legislature might block a move without knowing what would happen to UVa's interests, but that isn't insurmountable like it would be in a state that cares a lot more about things such as that.

But what if the SEC decides it is time to go to 16 schools, and to do it now? How do they go about that? I have a couple of ideas that I'll post about later today.

What are your thoughts: Will the conference just get 13 and see what happens? 14 or 16?  What schools can they target/will they target?

TD

For Further Reading:
- The Search for Number 14 - Team Speed Kills

SEC Presidents send message to TAMU

Having some experience in dealing with high level university administrators, I have graciously decoded the message Dr. Bernie Machen released through the SEC office regarding SEC expansion.  You're welcome.

“The SEC Presidents and Chancellors met today and reaffirmed our satisfaction with the present 12 institutional alignment.  We recognize, however, that future conditions may make it advantageous to expand the number of institutions in the league. We discussed criteria and process associated with expansion.  No action was taken with respect to any institution including Texas A&M.”

Should be read as:

 "The SEC is digging that stuff you are offering.  It is just that too many people are around eyeballing us to see how we are going to conduct ourselves, and we aren't willing to be "that guy."  Believe us, we are "that guy."  We think you should meet us at the Dew Drop Inn by the interstate, Room 17, about midnight, and we'll show you just how much "that guy" we are.  We'll bring some Cold Duck and hit the slot machine in the men's room at the gas station. By the way, if we get asked, we gonna act like we don't know you and tell folks we think you are a bit trashy for our tastes. No offense meant."

TD

Will the Aggies move to the SEC?

Dying or just getting started?

It seems like a good move.  Texas A&M and the rest of the 8 leftovers in the Texas Longhorn conference, are getting a complete rodgering less than advantageous deal.  Don Beebe might have saved the Big 12, but due to the concessions given the Longhorns, it is only a matter of time that several of the other schools will look for a change.

So we are working on the assumption that the change would be a power play by the SEC to get TAMU and another top tier team or three, in all likelihood from either from the Big 12 or the ACC.  Oklahoma or Oklahoma State come to mind.  Georgia Tech, Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech and Miami do, too.  For what it is worth, TCU makes some sense. But is SEC expansion the only thing that makes sense?  As Blutarski put it, I'd be more impressed if Mike Slive were talking about A&M moving to the SEC.  If the SEC does this, it won't be out of charity to TAMU or another team.  It'll be because Slive and the Presidents think it'll be a long term net money win.

Does adding TAMU help expand the TV footprint significantly enough?  I don't know.  The SEC is already on two national networks each week, with nearly every game broadcast regionally. Yes, it gets the SEC into the Texas market.  It would be good for SEC fans in Texas to be able to see the SEC regional games, but what does that do for the conference? Would adding TAMUs football and basketball revenue be a strong enough argument, when added to the expanded TV footprint, to make the move without knowing what other team would be used to balance the conference?

Is it more plausible that the Little 9 of the Big 12 look to balance their conference.  I can see a scenario that they make moves to encourage Texas to go independent, either by figuring out how to get them out of the Big 12 or otherwise.*  Otherwise isn't as good a deal, as any newly formed conference would not be a BCS conference, although it would likely quickly qualify, especially if Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas Tech and Texas A&M are in play.  What if you add TCU to that mix?

The best argument against this happening is that the Big 12 needs Texas more than Texas needs the Big 12. Is that still the case? Texas has made it such that those programs are subservient to the Longhorns.  Is a Big 12 without Texas better off long term for the majority of those schools than with a Texas dominated Big 12?  That might be the question of the day and the source of the TAMU to SEC talk.

If the next best argument for Texas to stay in the Big 12 is that Texas A&M and Oklahoma wouldn't want to give up playing Texas every year, the simple counter to that is that Texas doesn't want to stop playing them, either. The Red River Shootout and the Texas-Texas A&M games are two of the top 10 or 15 rivalry games nationally.  An independent Texas can't afford to give up those games. The Texas legislature probably wouldn't let the Longhorns give up TAMU or Texas Tech (or probably Baylor), anyway.   I'm not sure what the arrangement would be, but I feel pretty good about the leverage those teams might have if Texas chose, or were forced, to leave to be independent.  Furthermore, Texas probably doesn't have the leverage that Notre Dame does, so they might be outside the BCS looking in for a while.  Is it worth being equated with BYU, Army and Navy at BCS time?

Finally, the Longhorn network complicates any move of Texas to another conference. Again, I'm not sure of logistics and finances, but somebody, somewhere will have to convince Texas a move to their conference is a win for them.  No other conference is going to sell out to get Texas the way the Big 12 did to keep them.  What does giving up some of that Longhorn network money, or more fairly sharing conference money, and with more forks in the pie, do to Texas' decision making? 

From a fan's perspective, we seem to love this (FWIW, I'm ambivalent about a 14 or 16 team SEC).  From a business standpoint, if this is a move foreshadowing the true super conferences, it might make sense. If this is just a grab for A&M because we can, does it make sense?  For whatever reason, something isn't adding up with A&M just up and moving.

Am I way off base here?

TD

*I looked at the current Big 12 bylaws.  By my view, a vote of 75% of the board of directors of the conference, by amending the bylaws, vote Texas out of the conference.  I'll grant this is a very quick reading and interpretation of the bylaws.  If anyone knows for certain this is or isn't the case, please let me know in the comments.

The Mountain West could be in excellent shape

Even if the Pac 10 takes Utah on Wednesday as the Seattle Times is reporting, the MWC could still come out of this expansion talk in great shape. Their goal has always been to gain access to a BCS automatic qualifier slot, and adding Boise helps them meet that goal.

I personally think they showed better management than the Big 12 or the Pac 10 during the expansion talk by locking down Boise when they did (I know the Big 12 ended up in a better place financially, but I don't think it was their management that made it happen as much as falling into something created by outside forces). There were scenarios out there where the Big 12 North could've taken the best parts of the MWC, CUSA and WAC to rebuild the former Big 12. But adding Boise so quickly stopped some of that before it started.

Before the Pac 16 talk started, the MWC already was rumored to have a plan in place to pursue Boise, Fresno State and Houston. There's no reason why that plan can't move forward along with a 12th team like Nevada, Tulsa, Rice or SMU.

The last 2009 regular season Coaches Poll included these teams:

#3 TCU
#6 Boise State
#14 BYU
#25 Houston

By comparison, the SEC finished the '09 regular season with three ranked teams in the Coaches Poll. The league still has tremendous work to do in terms of building fan interest, but it has the potential with the expansion above to make significant progress. Plus, there are quality new rivalries in the league with Boise vs. BYU and TCU vs. Houston.

If the MWC takes Boise and Fresno State, it will be very hard for that league to keep its ESPN contract. One of the biggest problems with the MWC is the lack of an ESPN deal. Currently, their games are shown on CBS College Sports and Verses. And the WAC knows its vulnerable.

Also, the Pac 10 may move back to an eight game league schedule from their current nine game schedule once they expand to 12 teams. If so, their members will need to find non-conference opponents to fill the final slate at the same time that the Big 12 is moving to a nine game regular season. And it may not be as simple as the P10 members picking up the old B12 member non-conference games. I think the MWC members are going to end up picking up some nice match-ups from Pac-10 teams. Another potential win for their credibility.

Some changes I expect to see over the coming weeks (beyond the obvious Utah to the Pac 10 discussion):

• MWC Expansion - to include Fresno State and/or Houston at a minimum.
  
• WAC Implosion - This looks unavoidable to me.
  
• La Tech's Advancement - if Louisiana Tech can get into Conference USA to replace Houston, they're going to leap on it. Their program would take a nice step forward with the opportunity to face Southern Miss, Memphis, UAB and Tulane regularly as opposed to trips to Moscow, Idaho and Las Cruces, New Mexico.

It's still an interesting time. Even if the next moves don't register quite so loudly on the football richter scale.

PWD

Expansion Wrap Up

Let's say you throw a party for kids in the neighborhood. And let's say that kids who attend the party receive $10 million per year for the next 20 years. While kids that don't attend the party lose $20 million a year for the next 20 years. What do you think will happen?

Of course, parents are going to want their kids there. Not just one kid mind you...but multiple kids. And don't forget cousins, grandchildren and nephews.

That's among the reasons why I said last month, that I didn't see a 16-team league happening.

In the end, I think the Big 10 will expand by 1 team and the Pac 10 will go to 12. And most of the 16 team talk is brilliantly aimed at getting the Big 10 the best possible team to reach out to them for inclusion.

From there, all the leagues will take a deep breath. Because the contractual complexities of moving to 16 teams in one or more conferences are just too great. And University presidents are too risk adverse.

Regardless, Andy Katz's article about the mysterious Trilateral Coalition / Black Hand stopping the Pac 10 expansion is the best read of the entire Bay of Pigskin roller coaster ride.

Two schools who faired better than most think in expansion are:

• Iowa - The Hawkeyes and Huskers have only played six times since World War II, and only twice since Reagan's first term in office. This despite Lincoln being located only 60 miles from the Iowa state line. Right now, Iowa and Nebraska are on comparable footing in football. This is the perfect time for them to become rivals. More than likely, Iowa vs. Nebraska will become the season ending game for both programs, and that's the sort or big time match-up Iowa needs to raise demand for tickets. There's nothing like a heated border war to ignite the fan passion. Also, Iowa State can't sell area recruits on getting to face Nebraska every year. It's another hit to the Cyclones...which is also a win for Iowa.
  
  
• Colorado - They are taking a lot of heat for leaving the Big XII, but it makes total sense to me. When the Buffs were at their best, they were recruiting heavily out of Los Angeles. The rumors are that the Buffs will be in the same division with UCLA and USC which means a yearly game in LA. They are trading in division games against Nebraska and 4 teams that hardly get anyone in that part of the world excited for USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State and likely Utah. That's a towering home run from a ticket sales and fan interest standpoint. TV money is great, but you have to recruit players and sell tickets to win games, and they are better positioned to do that than ever.

What's your overall thought on Expansion? Bottom line for me...I'm glad we ended up where we did at the BCS level, but I don't think we're done at the mid-major level. See next post for more info.

PWD

Your Expansion Update

For a situation in constant flux, here's your morning update:

• Last night the Houston Chronicle reported that the Texas A&M Board of Regents will meet as early as Thursday to vote to join the Southeastern Conference. The other Big XII schools are expected to join the Pac 10. AggieSports.com points out that all eyes are on TAMU this week.
  
  
• The Texas legislature really wants everyone to take a deep breath and slow down. That's one of the reasons they've set up Wednesday hearings on this to find out what's going on and why.
  
  
• One Aggie blogger weighs in on the possibility of losing the series with Texas. Personally, I don't think it will come to that...regardless of what league everyone ends up in.
  
  
• And Rivals.com weighs in on expansion as it relates to recruiting.

PWD

Texas A&M Considering SEC

It's going to be very tough to pull off, but we're hearing that Texas A&M is receptive to joining the SEC with or without Texas. And the Longhorns, Sooners, Red Raiders and Cowboys are considering the Pac-10 offer with or without Texas A&M.

It'll be very hard for the Aggies to leave without Texas. They would likely need a commitment from Texas that they could still play each every year, but Gene Stallings and the TAMU president are looking at the SEC vs. Pac-10 decision in a very logical manner.

From the standpoint of distance for non-revenue sports and cultural fit, the move to the SEC is a no brainer. From a revenue standpoint, it's no worse than break even given that the Aggies would be able to sign their own TV / electronic rights deal outside of the SEC contract like UGA and Florida have ... both having long term deals worth more than $90 million.

If only the Aggies were added, the SEC would look to the East for the final piece of the puzzle with the most discussed name being Virginia Tech.

In my opinion, a 14 team SEC would move to a nine game conference schedule including a 6-1-2 rotation. All traditional cross divisional rivalries would be kept in place. The only sacrafice the league would be making would be in the area of non-conference scheduling. It would be incredibly difficult for schools like UGA, Florida and South Carolina to schedule non-conference games beyond their non-conference in state rivals and play a nine team SEC slate. But if we were adding Va Tech and Texas A&M to the mix....who cares about playing Oregon.

See Also:
-- The rift in Texas - Sportsline
-- Aggies listening to SEC - Orlando Sentinel
-- Texas has to listen to SEC - Tony Barnhart
-- A&M considering SEC - Sporting News
-- Texas won't hang around - ESPN
-- 16 team conference TV deals not a slam dunk - CNBC

PWD

It's Official: Colorado Joins the Pac 10

The Pac 10 conference announced today that The Colorado Buffaloes are joining their conference. This announcement was made moments ago. (Source: ESPN). This is on top of the likely news within the next 48 hours that Nebraska is joining the Big 10.

According to ESPN (and this was also discussed last night by Pete Thamel of the NYTimes):

Texas and Texas A&M officials are scheduled to meet [today] at an undisclosed location to discuss the future of their athletic programs and the Big 12 amid speculation the league could be raided by rival conferences and broken apart.

Things are moving very quickly. One of the big problems with expanding to 16 teams is...how do you keep fans happy when they are fewer titles to go around? Well, the Pac 10 may have dreamed up a very obnoxious answer to that question (ht - blutarsky):

The coach said it's possible the Pac-16 would push for two automatic bids to the BCS, one for each division champion. That potential bonanza could open the possibility of the two division champs from one league playing for the national title, and it would eliminate the need for a conference championship game.

"The Pac-10 doesn't believe in a championship game," the coach said. "And coaches in the Big 12 don't like it anyway."

If they move in that direction, the Pac 10 is essentially not a single conference at all. It's a modified version of the Pac 8 meets the Southwest Conference in a marriage for TV purposes only.

Imagine the SEC applying this thinking and expanding to 16. You'd have a league whereby the SEC East and SEC West champs both earned a BCS slot automatically, but there would be absolutely no "settling it on the field" in that scenario as the two division champs wouldn't meet in Atlanta. Bizarre.

See Also:
-- Texas A&M and the SEC in talks? - SI.com
-- Scrambling to save the Big XII - NY Times

PWD