North Carolina has officially been offered to join the Big Ten

[gatordee]

Let them go where they may but lets lock the doors to the SEC.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by slique7

ATL:

Agree, we share the same feelings on UNC; they are in a position to pick between two great financial options, but that's where the similarities stop, at money. The BIG will tout it's academics, while the SEC it's football. Obviously, the question is; which one will they value more? In my opinion, the SEC brand makes a difference, and will be the difference in deciding which school is better on Saturday's. Whereas value is neither gained or lost academically, other than pretentious feelings that will eventually heal. I don't think their ego will allow State to be NC's premier football program. In sum, there is tangible VALUE in choosing the SEC.

Respectfully, I don't think you could be more wrong on the Big12. You don't think the SEC has a vested interest in the Big12, a conference that we just committed to as a post season partner? We don't do bad deals. The SEC isn't signing up for that deal, only to have the PAC come in and destroy it, while effectively strengthening their position (Rose Bowl) and leaving the SEC without an option to match. I think the SEC has proven, by leading CFB into it's last two era's, conf. championship games & BCS, that they deserve more respect and are much more big picture/forward thinking.

The remains of the Big12/ACC wouldn't deserve to play our champion, much less command the same money as the Rose Bowl. That has been proven, by the Big12 and really more so Texas, when we made our decision to partner with them, rather than the BigEast or ACC.

I think the big question with UNC is exactly how tied they are to Duke. I don't think the SEC has any interest in taking Duke, while the Big-10 might be more likely to offer both. The other factor may be that UNC probably has a better chance of being competitive in the Big-10 than the SEC, at least in football. They would have a comparably superior recruiting base in the Big-10 and probably an average recruiting base in the SEC. It's just hard to say what, if anything, will motivate UNC.

As for the SEC's relationship with the Big-12, I tend to think the bowl game alignment probably had more to do with the SEC wanting to destabilize and deal a death blow to the ACC than truly helping the Big-12, and I think it worked. They essentially set up the Big-12 to survive but not much more. That deal really doesn't help the SEC that much. The SEC would do just fine matching up against the highest ranked non SEC/Big-10/Pac-12 team, as opposed to the Big-12.

I may be end up being wrong, but that's my opinion.

[tilly]

So, by now we can assume that UNC has NOT been OFFICIALLY offered, yes?

[UberTiger]

Originally Posted by tilly

So, by now we can assume that UNC has NOT been OFFICIALLY offered, yes?

Excellent question.

[HayGator]

Originally Posted by tilly

So, by now we can assume that UNC has NOT been OFFICIALLY offered, yes?

We should know for sure when we get to about 20 pages to this thread.

[GatorLaw]

Still waiting for the "official" announcement.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by GatorLaw

Still waiting for the "official" announcement.

To reiterate, all the report says is that UNC has been "offered", which could be as simple as an informal verbal "We want you in the Big-10". Nor is there any report from anywhere that there's interest on UNC's part in the Big-10 or even leaving the ACC. Chances are there will never be any formal announcement or written offer extended unless UNC accepts and both sides come to terms.

The SEC didn't extend an official offer to Texas A&M until they formally left the Big-12, cleared all the legal hurdles and were pretty much ready to accept on the spot.

I'm just pointing out that just because there isn't a formal announcement or follow up reports, doesn't mean an offer hasn't been made. It probably just means UNC isn't ready to leave the ACC ... yet.

[slique7]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

I think the big question with UNC is exactly how tied they are to Duke. I don't think the SEC has any interest in taking Duke, while the Big-10 might be more likely to offer both. The other factor may be that UNC probably has a better chance of being competitive in the Big-10 than the SEC, at least in football. They would have a comparably superior recruiting base in the Big-10 and probably an average recruiting base in the SEC. It's just hard to say what, if anything, will motivate UNC.

As for the SEC's relationship with the Big-12, I tend to think the bowl game alignment probably had more to do with the SEC wanting to destabilize and deal a death blow to the ACC than truly helping the Big-12, and I think it worked. They essentially set up the Big-12 to survive but not much more. That deal really doesn't help the SEC that much. The SEC would do just fine matching up against the highest ranked non SEC/Big-10/Pac-12 team, as opposed to the Big-12.

I may be end up being wrong, but that's my opinion.

ATL:

We are not that far apart. I agree with you regarding the destabilization of the ACC, it was a piece of the plan; it is the end game where we disagree. That, along with the partnership with the Big12, are not mutually exclusive.

It's clear when the dust settles, no matter the outcome, that CFB will have 4 major conferences. It serves us much better to partner with a powerful one, the Big12 (Texas), for many reasons.

If consolidation continues, the SEC is positioned to further strengthen the brand. The most beautiful thing, we don't need UNC to do it, although they are clearly the first choice.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by slique7

ATL:

We are not that far apart. I agree with you regarding the destabilization of the ACC, it was a piece of the plan; it is the end game where we disagree. That, along with the partnership with the Big12, are not mutually exclusive.

It's clear when the dust settles, no matter the outcome, that CFB will have 4 major conferences. It serves us much better to partner with a powerful one, the Big12 (Texas), for many reasons.

If consolidation continues, the SEC is positioned to further strengthen the brand. The most beautiful thing, we don't need UNC to do it, although they are clearly the first choice.

And by the end game, I presume you mean whether Texas and OU ultimately stay in the Big-12 or move to the Pac-12 I presume. That's definitely the big question that nobody know the answer to.

I think what the question really comes down to for Texas and OU is which conference is going to be better with them in it.

The Pac-12 currently has a big lead on the Big-12, but how much would adding cable markets in Texas and Oklahoma affect the Pac-12? Personally, I think that would put the Pac-12 media deal on par with the Big-10 and SEC.

The alternative for Texas and OU would be to stay in the Big-12, which lets assume they add FSU and Clemson to get to 12. Those would both be high profile additions and adds the huge Florida TV market, but SC isn't much. But who do they add after that?

The most logical would be GT, which would the Atlanta TV market and fill the gap between FL and SC, but GT appears headed to the Big-10. Miami really adds almost nothing if they already have FSU. They aren't getting Notre Dame. They probably aren't getting and VA schools and none of the NC schools are going to go alone. They could try to take UL, Syracuse and Pitt, which would give them a cluster of contiguous states (KY,WV, PA, NY) but I'm not sure any of those schools are going to dramatically help their TV contracts. The bottom line is that the Big-12 is kind of in a position similar to the Pac-12 in that there just aren't many realistic candidates for expansion that are going to increase the per member revenue.

Plus, outside of the state of Texas, the Big-12 media map is WEAK. And with the additions of WVU and we'll assume FSU and Clemson, the map picks up FL (which is big) but it's going to be Swiss cheese. Which means the Big-12, even if it gets who it wants, is going to have a tougher time getting a TV deal comparable to the SEC, Big-10 and Pac-10, because they really don't have any regions to sell.

So the question for UTX and OU is which conference - Pac-12 or Big-12 - is going to have a stronger long-term future with them in it and generate more money for them. In my opinion, the Pac-12 with UTX and OU is going to be much stronger then the Big-12 with UTX and OU - both competitively and financially.

From a TV standpoint, the Pac-12 would have a pretty strong media map with all contiguous states. The only pockets in their map would be Nevada and New Mexico. But it's a media map that's going to be easy to sell.

But of course, even if UTX and OU want to leave, there are still the hurdles of the media rights and the LHN and possible legal action. So who knows.

[OaktownGator]

No matter how you look at it, Texas really screwed the Big 12.

And likely screwed itself in the end.

[socraticsilence]

I don't know I think Basketball is pretty huge money maker for the heels and a good portion of that money is due to the Tobacco Road thing they have in the ACC- why risk that for football?

[socraticsilence]

Originally Posted by nawlinsgator

It seems the SEC had those two states in mind also....North Carolina and Virginia, to expand their footprint.
Looks like the Big 10 beat them to it. First time for everything I guess.

This is why I thought WVU made more sense than Mizzou- it gives the Virgina footprint, while Mizzou does give the KC area media market, I'd wager that said market is less interested in SEC football than Virginia would have been.

[socraticsilence]

Miami is a hole, but FSU as much as I hate their program has to be intriguing for an SEC commissioner actually looking to expand- they have tradition, a national reach are decent academically (I think academics may have been the hang up with WVU- though give the persistence of the Mississippi and Alabama schools I can't see academics being all that important) and are competitive in multiple sports- it might hurt us but for a guy like Slive I don't see why FSU wouldn't be on the top of his list.

[socraticsilence]

Originally Posted by tilly

I assume playoff revenues will be like bcs revenue...split among all conference members... thus reducing the financial advantage of a deep playoff run.

Am I wrong in that assumption?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Gator Country

You're probably right, we wont get a 13th game and honestly it'd make more sense to go back to 11 and just run the playoffs like the FCS does but that's not going to happen.

[tilly]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

To reiterate, all the report says is that UNC has been "offered", which could be as simple as an informal verbal "We want you in the Big-10". Nor is there any report from anywhere that there's interest on UNC's part in the Big-10 or even leaving the ACC. Chances are there will never be any formal announcement or written offer extended unless UNC accepts and both sides come to terms.

The SEC didn't extend an official offer to Texas A&M until they formally left the Big-12, cleared all the legal hurdles and were pretty much ready to accept on the spot.

I'm just pointing out that just because there isn't a formal announcement or follow up reports, doesn't mean an offer hasn't been made. It probably just means UNC isn't ready to leave the ACC ... yet.

True, But the title of the thread claims its "Official" ...Not a knock on @Hungary, just questioning the source he cites.

[HungaryGator]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

The Pac-12 currently has a big lead on the Big-12, but how much would adding cable markets in Texas and Oklahoma affect the Pac-12? Personally, I think that would put the Pac-12 media deal on par with the Big-10 and SEC.

Agreed

The alternative for Texas and OU would be to stay in the Big-12, which lets assume they add FSU and Clemson to get to 12. Those would both be high profile additions and adds the huge Florida TV market, but SC isn't much. But who do they add after that?

If they go to 12 they might as well go to 16 like the others. I don't see why they'd stop at just 2. Louisville is a decent program and they'd still be available. NC State would still be available if UNC chooses the SEC. That's 14. Room for a couple more which add value...or which they at least think could add value.

The most logical would be GT, which would the Atlanta TV market and fill the gap between FL and SC, but GT appears headed to the Big-10. Miami really adds almost nothing if they already have FSU. They aren't getting Notre Dame.

Where else does ND have to go? Nowhere. I think they very well could get ND. ND doesn't want to but they'd have simply run out of options.

[quote]They probably aren't getting and VA schools and none of the NC schools are going to go alone.[quote]

if UNC chooses the SEC, the Big 10 wouldn't take NC State because they are not in the AAU. For the Big 12 however, this is not a stumbling block. If the Big 10 didn't take Duke would the Big 12? For basketball and academics, I think they'd consider it.

They could try to take UL, Syracuse and Pitt, which would give them a cluster of contiguous states (KY,WV, PA, NY) but I'm not sure any of those schools are going to dramatically help their TV contracts. The bottom line is that the Big-12 is kind of in a position similar to the Pac-12 in that there just aren't many realistic candidates for expansion that are going to increase the per member revenue.

Beyond say sow, Clemson and possibly NC State and Notre Dame none of them are big draws (though maybe scUM could be argued to be based on past performance on the field). That means to become a superconference they'd be swallowing 1-2 less desirable properties but....it'd be worth it with the rest they are getting and this would cement them as one of the final 4 superconferences...and if they got ND, sow, Clemson and maybe NC State and scUM they'd have added a lot of markets and some big names that would garner media attention/prestige. Would it match the Big 10 or SEC? Hell no. It'd be a motley collection of leftovers...but still....it'd be something. That would probably be a better league than the PAC both in terms of quality and footprint/revenues.

Plus, outside of the state of Texas, the Big-12 media map is WEAK. And with the additions of WVU and we'll assume FSU and Clemson, the map picks up FL (which is big) but it's going to be Swiss cheese. Which means the Big-12, even if it gets who it wants, is going to have a tougher time getting a TV deal comparable to the SEC, Big-10 and Pac-10, because they really don't have any regions to sell.

Add the names I mentioned above and they'll thump the tub about their quality...and with Bevo. the Sooners, ND, sow and scUM it would be hard to argue they don't have vastly superior quality to the PAC. Hell, the Big 10 only has 4 bigtime programs (PSU, Nebraska, OSU, Meatchicken).

So the question for UTX and OU is which conference - Pac-12 or Big-12 - is going to have a stronger long-term future with them in it and generate more money for them. In my opinion, the Pac-12 with UTX and OU is going to be much stronger then the Big-12 with UTX and OU - both competitively and financially.

I agree....if its JUST Bevo and the Sooners. I think you're forgetting how many leftovers there would be from the remnants of the ACC + Notre Dame who would have to choose a seat now that the music is stopping.

From a TV standpoint, the Pac-12 would have a pretty strong media map with all contiguous states. The only pockets in their map would be Nevada and New Mexico. But it's a media map that's going to be easy to sell.

The only really big state in their footprint is California which is admittedly huge but after that the pickin's are very slim....and its not just total population. Its that college sports in general and college football in particular is not followed nearly as closely out there as it is in the Midwest and not even close to how passionate people are about it in Dixie.

But of course, even if UTX and OU want to leave, there are still the hurdles of the media rights and the LHN and possible legal action. So who knows.

That's another problem. I don't think they would leave. The PAC should have swallowed their pride and taken Bevo on Bevo's terms 2 years ago or should have at least taken the Sooners and Okie Light to make the Big 12 unviable which would almost certainly have led to Bevo heading westward eventually. They didn't pull the trigger figuring they could force Bevo to better terms in a few years and now Bevo may have the last laugh because the Big 10 and SEC may gut the ACC - inevitably leaving some nice properties for Bevo to scoop up.

[HungaryGator]

Originally Posted by socraticsilence

This is why I thought WVU made more sense than Mizzou- it gives the Virgina footprint, while Mizzou does give the KC area media market, I'd wager that said market is less interested in SEC football than Virginia would have been.

Worst Virginia in no way, shape or form delivers the state of Virginia. Not even close. All it delivers is its own sparsely populated and very poor state.

[slique7]

ATL:

UT does not need the PAC; they already have a better deal, one that includes: the LHN, a solid Big12 deal, and the newly formed partnership with the SEC that will deliver huge revenue. I don't think it can be overstated, the Cotton Bowl partnership was HUGE for the Big12. Everyone is happy and rich.
Furthermore, I truly don't believe UT wants to take their brand to the left coast, too much "Texan" in them for that. They'd be independent first, but they are much more satisfied controlling the Big12, which they will always do, even through expansion. The flirting with the PAC, IMO, was just due diligence, triggered by a slight fear of OU joining the SEC.

[AzCatFan]

The original PAC offering was to add Colorado, Oklahoma, OK Light, Texas, TTech, Texas A&M, and Texas. Bevo said drop Colorado and add Baylor, and they'd talk. At the same time, Texas A&M said no thanks to being the eastern-most property in a west-coast conference, and started flirting seriously with the SEC. At no time did the PAC ever truly have a chance to pick up Bevo. Not to mention, the LHN would have been a major sticking point, especially since the PAC did and now has launched its own network.

I think then newly appointed PAC-10 Commissioner Larry Scott saw the future writing on the wall and that the PAC would not be in a position of strength when it came to expansion. There are simply few, good options in the west. He tried his best to get a huge coup by gobbling up OU and Bevo, but truth be told, too many obstacles that in reality, it never got that far. Scott then went to plan B, Colorado and Utah, which would create the PAC-12, which did give Scott the change to launch the PAC-12 Network, and strengthen the conference. Problem is, as Scott saw early, the PAC is back in a weak position as further expansion continues, because other than Texas, OU, and Okie Light, the other properties west of Texas aren't that desirable.

As far as UNC goes, like it or not, they are tied to Duke. NCState also has a huge, inferiority complex, and if UNC gets a better deal, the Wolfpack won't stand for it unless they get something too. That doesn't mean UNC and NCState won't split, just State will put up a big fuss if say UNC goes to the SEC, the Big 10 doesn't want NCState, and the Pack are left at the altar.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

If they go to 12 they might as well go to 16 like the others. I don't see why they'd stop at just 2. Louisville is a decent program and they'd still be available. NC State would still be available if UNC chooses the SEC. That's 14. Room for a couple more which add value...or which they at least think could add value.

Unless the Pac-12 goes beyond 12, there's really no reason for the Big-12 to go beyond 12. UL would be a possible filler if they had to get to a number, but I wouldn't base expanding around them. Like I said, none of the NC schools will make the move to the Big-12 alone. I guess if the Big-12 wanted Duke or WF, that's a possibility, but I don't see it happening.

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

Where else does ND have to go? Nowhere. I think they very well could get ND. ND doesn't want to but they'd have simply run out of options.

If and when ND decides to go to a conference for football, there is no doubt in my mind it will be the Big-10. Big-10 would take them in a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

if UNC chooses the SEC, the Big 10 wouldn't take NC State because they are not in the AAU. For the Big 12 however, this is not a stumbling block. If the Big 10 didn't take Duke would the Big 12? For basketball and academics, I think they'd consider it.

I don't think any conference takes Duke on their own merits. In my opinion, the only way Duke ends up in a major conference is in a package deal for UNC or if what I think ultimately happens and the remains of the ACC merge with the Big-12

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

Beyond say sow, Clemson and possibly NC State and Notre Dame none of them are big draws (though maybe scUM could be argued to be based on past performance on the field). That means to become a superconference they'd be swallowing 1-2 less desirable properties but....it'd be worth it with the rest they are getting and this would cement them as one of the final 4 superconferences...and if they got ND, sow, Clemson and maybe NC State and scUM they'd have added a lot of markets and some big names that would garner media attention/prestige. Would it match the Big 10 or SEC? Hell no. It'd be a motley collection of leftovers...but still....it'd be something. That would probably be a better league than the PAC both in terms of quality and footprint/revenues.

FSU and Clemson would be good pick ups. If there was another decent NC school, NCSU would be a good pick-up. Notre Dame is beyond a pipe dream! UL is really a filler. Miami does literally nothing for the Big-12 once they have FSU.

And that's my point. I don't think any of the other schools make sense. None will increase the revenue enough for the others to agree on them. No conference in their right mind is going to take FSU and Clemson and then grow by 33% by adding 4 filler programs. That's basically the ACC's recent strategy and it blew up in their face.

The Big-12 has already pretty much cemented it's position as one of the 4-super conferences, with a little help from the SEC. The worst thing they could do is dilute themselves by adding random crappy programs.

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

Add the names I mentioned above and they'll thump the tub about their quality...and with Bevo. the Sooners, ND, sow and scUM it would be hard to argue they don't have vastly superior quality to the PAC. Hell, the Big 10 only has 4 bigtime programs (PSU, Nebraska, OSU, Meatchicken)

I guess if all that happened they could, but the chances of them adding any real quality programs beyond FSU and Clemson is extremely low in my opinion. I'm not even sure they get FSU right now.

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

I agree....if its JUST Bevo and the Sooners. I think you're forgetting how many leftovers there would be from the remnants of the ACC + Notre Dame who would have to choose a seat now that the music is stopping.

Not forgetting that at all. Take Notre Dame out of the equation (they aren't staying with the ACC or going to the Big-12), and if things go pretty much as I expect, there will be EXACTLY 16 teams remaining between the ACC and Big-12. Ideal number for a merger.

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

The only really big state in their footprint is California which is admittedly huge but after that the pickin's are very slim....and its not just total population. Its that college sports in general and college football in particular is not followed nearly as closely out there as it is in the Midwest and not even close to how passionate people are about it in Dixie.

Trust me, I know. But we're not talking about where they are now, but where they'd be if UTX and OU moved.

The Pac-12 with UTX and OU would have 8 of the top 20 TV markets (Mostly in CA and TX which are good). SEC currently has 6. Big-12 (with or without Texas), currently has Texas and would add Florida with FSU. That would put them at 5 by my count.

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

That's another problem. I don't think they would leave. The PAC should have swallowed their pride and taken Bevo on Bevo's terms 2 years ago or should have at least taken the Sooners and Okie Light to make the Big 12 unviable which would almost certainly have led to Bevo heading westward eventually. They didn't pull the trigger figuring they could force Bevo to better terms in a few years and now Bevo may have the last laugh because the Big 10 and SEC may gut the ACC - inevitably leaving some nice properties for Bevo to scoop up.

Actually, I disagree with you on this. By the Pac-12 NOT taking UTX, strengthened their future position and weakened UTX's bargaining position. UTX had to give up quite a bit just to stay in the Big-12. Outside of the media rights deal, the Pac-12 is in a MUCH better bargaining position with UTX than it was before, plus now OU, Okey State and Texas Tech will be negotiating on a much more level playing field with Texas than before.

That's not to say that Texas definitely joins the Pac-12, but with the way Texas has been weaken in the past 2-3 years, I think it's more likely they do now than before.