B1G just took 2 from the same city, SEC took Texas even though A&M opposed
having another school from their state. These are the last two P-2 expansions, so not only is Tarheelblue right below that the P-2 aren’t against taking two from a state, the last two expansion actions prove the opposite.
** Edited by Stech at 5/24/2023, 9:34:48 PM
25 Replies
3y
** Edited by LonghornHokie at 5/25/2023, 4:27:05 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
I don’t buy the Brand argument and I have spent a professional life in the Sports Brand world.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
But OU couldn't get Oklahoma State in.
Texas and USC are massive football brands from massive states. They dwarf UVa, VT, UNC and NCState. It's not exactly an equal comparison.
Not saying it's not possible to get all four into the same conference, but it's not what the SEC and B1G are aiming at.
Virginia has 4.7 million more people than Oklahoma.
Virginia has 21.3 million less people than Texas.
Virginia has 30.3 million less people than California. So this is why taking UCLA as a straphanger isn't a big deal, no matter what city they are from. And of course taking UT-Austin as a "second" school is a no brainer.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/25/2023, 12:29:34 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
Vippie1
3y
If you make it a binary choice, to take all or none, and cede the DC to Charlotte market to your competitor, it is IMO that both sec and b1g would make offers.
Actually I think the way it would likely play out in end is ncsu to sec and uva unc vt to B1G....just my guess. But nothing is happening for a pretty good while.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
** Edited by Flemington Hokie at 5/25/2023, 9:54:53 AM
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
3y
(In response to this post by DrMaroon)
V
Vippie1
3y
my point is neither of the P2 would want to cede the entire DC to Charlotte market to the other- hence the leverage the 4 schools have together.
(In response to this post by Mercury)
3y
The Big ten and SEC may not dominate those markets, but they already have a strong presence there. Adding a school from each state, especially in the age of streaming, probably will not make the huge difference a lot of people think it will. ACC fans watch a lot of SEC football, probably more than they watch ACC football.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/25/2023, 11:55:17 AM
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
3y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VTejrep
3y
UVa, VT, UNC, NC St, Clemson and FSU, cutting off the BIG from the mid Atlantic and the south. Who would be left? GT, Duke and Miami?
(In response to this post by Stech)
T
TDVick
3y
how crappy we are right now, it think the DC/VA TV market is appealing. I kind of think NC State would be further down the chain. I think Clemson steals their turf.
(In response to this post by VTejrep)
T
Truthahn
3y
The MAG7, plus GT.
(In response to this post by VTejrep)
T
Truthahn
3y
Super 6?
(In response to this post by VTejrep)
3y
At this point a P2 conference grabbing just 1 or 2 schools - it is tough to increase the per team payout. A critical mass is needed so not only does the expanding conference get the new team's eyeballs, they also get their fans involved with the new teams. I don't think FLA fans are jumping up and down about USCw and UCLA. Not that they dislike it - it just kinda is. It'll make a fun road trip every so often, brings in some money, fun to play a historically good school, but many/most won't become a fan of watching those teams, outside of when they play FLA.
Now if FSU, Clemson, maybe the U, and the VA/NC schools become frequent opponents - that'll drive interest (and TV/ad dollars) in games that they otherwise might not watch. Local rivalries matter. FLA fans would want to be involved in in-person/bar conversations about other local SEC teams - they'd be more likely to watch FSU-Clemson than USCw-UCLA, as would most NC/VA CFB fans.
(In response to this post by VTejrep)
3y
this combo. It actually makes a lot of sense if they want to get to 20. Still chuckle at the thought of the hoos in the SEC.
(In response to this post by VTejrep)
3y
Seems like they would want 2 more to get to 24 in that case.
(In response to this post by JohnsonCItyHokie)
T
TDVick
3y
jockeying to split the baby in half. If you had to slot VT and UVA into 2 conferences, it really seems like VT to SEC and UVA to B10 make the most sense. Much more so than the other way around.
(In response to this post by JohnsonCItyHokie)
3y
I assume but can't prove there historically more connection in STEM between VT and B1G schools. Don't know how research goals factor in to the U prez's thoughts. The addition of VT med schools only help. I keep remembering that President Sands was acting president of Purdue.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
3y
athletic conference membership, they're fools. Who you play sportsball with is a nothingburger in academics/research.
(yes, they will spew some lip service about academics in the athletics context...because as presidents of academic institutions, they kinda have to maintain the charade.)
(In response to this post by Flemington Hokie)
M
Mercury
3y
But there us a big divide on linkage and governsnce between university and athletics on the boardz.
(In response to this post by Flemington Hokie)