Are you talking about recruiting? How is the Big 10 currently shut out from Florida?
Is there any scenario where the ACC doesn’t get poached long-term?
- Thread starter HailToPitt725
- Start date
Yes, Texas "counts."
Yes, A&M delivers the Texas market. Both the SEC and ESPN though so when A&M joined and the TV contract was increased.
"Delivering the market" gets thrown around without proper definition. For regular broadcasts where ratings are collected, A&M does enough to "deliver" the market, in term of ratings.
For one, they have a sizable fan/alumni base throughout the state (not just Houston and two other places). They also have enough of a presence to deliver other fanbases. For example, Texas fans will watch just to see A&M lose. Baylor fans will watch just to see A&M lose. Texas Tech fans will watch just to see A&M lose, etc.
In terms of non-rated games (i.e. SEC Network), the issue is carriage fees for the conference network. The SEC gets the in-footprint fee for SECN due to A&M. Plus they already have carriage with the major providers in Texas.
That is the definition of "delivering" a market. Could the get a few more subscribers or a little bit of a ratings jump with Texas? Yes. Do they fundamentally get what they need to carry the market with A&M? Yes.
There’s no more value out west.
The Big 10 needs a southern footprint.
The south dominates college football. The Big 10 can’t be left out of the south.
The Big 10 is littered with players from FL and Nebraska just landed a 4-star from Miami.
They're left out of the south now and they make the most money of any league in the country.
Cool.
They also have like one team capable of winning a national title, because the rest of the conference is so untalented. And it’s untalented because how much is struggles to get talent in the south.
It’s going to be a bad look for the conference when it’s getting its ass handed to it in the playoffs every year by southern teams.
Or people can believe it’s going to go west for some reason.
It’s all cyclical, though. Aside from Ohio State, they have multiple programs who are near that level (Michigan, Penn State, USC) and a few others who could if everything aligned properly (UCLA, Wisconsin).
They've had different schools make the playoffs. I'd say that's more than one capable team.
They are already bringing in recruits from Florida. Those teams aren't going to compete on the national stage recruiting only the conference territory, they're recruiting nationally.
UCLA and Wisconsin aren’t even close.
And Michigan, PSU, and USC are close, but I don’t think have a path to clear the trench hurdle that really holds them back.
They get mostly scraps from the south.
You aren’t building a national power with that.
What the Big Ten needs are teams in talent hubs that are capable of putting together elite classes with an insane influx of cash.
And then use that to gain a footprint in those areas so the other teams can hopefully make real gains.
I didn’t mean they were necessarily close right now, but I think they’re programs that are capable of catching lightning. I like the Badgers with Fickell and UCLA now has a good combination of California talent with Big Ten money.
Ohio State has 6 guys total in the 2023/2024 class. The Bosa Boys come to mind right away. Ohio State regularly pulls studs from FL. Just about every team in the Big 10 has a starter(s) from FL.
Last edited:
Until that money is used to pay the players it really won't matter that much. There are teams that pump money into their programs and don't get results. It's still pretty much Georgia/Alabama and everyone else.
I don’t think you fully appreciate how much talent it takes to go blow for blow with Georgia.
I’m not sure even with a great jump in recruiting, Wisconsin and UCLA would be there.
Yeah, I already said Ohio State is the actual national championship level team.
And you keep wanting to tell me that the Big Ten *literally* lands players from FL.
I get that. What I’m arguing is the players most of them get are JAGs. Which is why the Big Ten does not legitimately compete for national titles outside of Ohio State.
The best of the Big Ten is significantly below the best of the SEC on a yearly basis. Because the SEC is playing with the players it cherry picked from the south. While the Big Ten (outside of OSU) is playing with the second tier ones the southern schools didn’t want.
The south dominates college football for a reason. It’s not luck.
Just a couple of thoughts
1) I remember when Miami and VT joined. Golic and Greenie proclaimed the ACC as the best football conference in America. 2 high profile football programs at the time, coupled with FSU' great run, GT recently a national champion and look how things have gone south
2) All this chatter about the best "brands" available has merit. However, it would be wise to remember the B1G and SEC are kingmakers. Any school taken has has the chance to elevate. Missouri, Rutgers, MD are examples of lesser brands that for whatever reason struck gold.
3) U Florida will roadblock 2 Florida teams joining. I Cant see Miami there
But Miami to the B1G makes sense on several levels.
I seem to recall some poster a number of years ago said Miami was Big Ten bound and got sliced to ribbons.
Finally, my biggest fear is Pitt ends up in some City League with Temple, BC, Memphis, USF.
Man that would be the death knell
1) I remember when Miami and VT joined. Golic and Greenie proclaimed the ACC as the best football conference in America. 2 high profile football programs at the time, coupled with FSU' great run, GT recently a national champion and look how things have gone south
2) All this chatter about the best "brands" available has merit. However, it would be wise to remember the B1G and SEC are kingmakers. Any school taken has has the chance to elevate. Missouri, Rutgers, MD are examples of lesser brands that for whatever reason struck gold.
3) U Florida will roadblock 2 Florida teams joining. I Cant see Miami there
But Miami to the B1G makes sense on several levels.
I seem to recall some poster a number of years ago said Miami was Big Ten bound and got sliced to ribbons.
Finally, my biggest fear is Pitt ends up in some City League with Temple, BC, Memphis, USF.
Man that would be the death knell
To your last thought, I’d hope that we’d just pivot to basketball and pursue a Big East invitation if it gets to that point. I don’t think it would, though. If schools like Georgia Tech, NC State, and the Virginia schools are also left out, I think there’d be enough “meat” in the ACC to keep it alive.
Struck gold, and yet didn't "elevate" to any significant level. Missouri is still Missouri, and Rutgers and Maryland still suck.
But what would Missouri’s future be with a lot less money and playing in a non-Big 2 conference?
“Survive and advance.” That’s the name of the game. There’s no hope of advancing, if you don’t even survive.
Missouri has at least guaranteed its survival.
For now, at least. I still think the Big Ten/SEC will find ways to “trim the fat” over time. But, like you said, survive and advance.
They might actually have a pretty good season once in a while?
My comment wasn't directed at the notion of survival, it was directed at the other poster using those three schools as examples of schools that have a chance to elevate. I'd argue that for Rutgers and Maryland they may have guaranteed survival, but they have also just about guaranteed that they will never, ever elevate.
I don’t think that’s true either.
You have to survive to even have a chance to elevate. So as a factual matter, yes, they are schools that have a chance to elevate.
But MD and Rutgers are really examples of how dumb divisions are.
We aren’t even having this conversation about MD if the Big Ten didn’t put them with Michigan, OSU, PSU, and MSU every year.
They essentially started the year off 0-4 every year.
And Missouri has been to two SEC Championship games.
So what you are saying is that doing away with divisions won't actually make Maryland any better, but they might look better because they get to play a weaker schedule. And you don't see how that means that they aren't actually elevating their program?
In the end, this whole “elevating” discussion is pointless because you almost can’t elevate without a large influx of cash. And chances that’s only coming because you joined teams that are at the top of the mountain.
Maybe nobody will care about Missouri in the SEC. But nobody should care about Missouri. They aren’t a team with any kind of natural competitive advantage. College football is not a blank slate where any and every team is capable of the same thing.
But you know for sure how Missouri gets nobody to care about it and guarantees it will never elevate? Still be in the Big 12 right now.
Maybe nobody will care about Missouri in the SEC. But nobody should care about Missouri. They aren’t a team with any kind of natural competitive advantage. College football is not a blank slate where any and every team is capable of the same thing.
But you know for sure how Missouri gets nobody to care about it and guarantees it will never elevate? Still be in the Big 12 right now.
No, I’m saying it’s possible MD did elevate. And could elevate even more. But being in a division with so many powers means you maybe don’t see that in the W-L record.
You see that in the SEC West as well.
Throwing Southern Cal and UCLA in the mix, and rotating the schedule every other year, means they still get to start off 0-4 every year.
You also can't elevate a program when you join a megaconference with 3-4 teams who are going to beat you every time you play. If Pitt was in the Big 10, they'd be completely irrelevant. Zero chance at a title game, big bowl game, and would generally be an afterthought in the conference. At least in the ACC, though getting ignored and disrespected being an outsider at times, also gets enough recognition as a true contender in the conference and have achieved some excellent accomplishments.
If they ever ended up in the SEC, it'd be the same as the Big 10. All kinds of TV money and nothing to show for on the field. Is being in a lesser conference with a chance at winning it and making the playoffs better or worse than never having a chance in a megaconference but a ton of TV money?
Yeah, Michigan State kinda had a chance to win a national title that year. All they needed was a bunch of miracles to happen.
But the ACC is dead.
It’s weird the argument is, “at least if they were still in a dead conference.”
No. There’s no point after that.
I can't imagine how anyone who follows college football could think that. I mean not by any serious amount.
So I guess the best-case scenario is the ACC only loses Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina? That’d seem to follow only the top brands being poached from the Big 12 (Oklahoma, Texas) and Pac-12 (UCLA, USC).
In that case, I’d hope that the ACC backfills with the three eastern Big 12 schools (Cincinnati, UCF, WVU) and UConn. Would definitely be nice to keep a presence in Florida. IMO, that’d still be the third best conference, behind the Big Ten and SEC but in front of the Big 12.
Edit: on a side note, boy did South Florida blow it. Had they invested in their program the way UCF did, they could’ve been been the ones receiving the Big 12 invite, and maybe eventually landing in the ACC.
In that case, I’d hope that the ACC backfills with the three eastern Big 12 schools (Cincinnati, UCF, WVU) and UConn. Would definitely be nice to keep a presence in Florida. IMO, that’d still be the third best conference, behind the Big Ten and SEC but in front of the Big 12.
Edit: on a side note, boy did South Florida blow it. Had they invested in their program the way UCF did, they could’ve been been the ones receiving the Big 12 invite, and maybe eventually landing in the ACC.
Last edited:
If it happens at the end of the GOR (as the ‘deplorables’ of the ACC seem to be trying to wait it out to get to), that’s so far out there (13 years?) who can really predict… for example if Clemson doesn’t stay a regular football power, would either conference really want them?
But I think ESPN (pressured by the SEC) forces the issue well before then, null-and-voiding the GOR (I’d assume as the money behind it, ESPN has secret power in the deal to break it up), letting those schools leave.
Then what is the take then? FSU and Clemson to Sec, Miami and UNC to the B1G, seem given. Possibly they also split up and take VT and UVA respectively. Maybe B1G takes BC to tempt ND (that seems remote). Or Duke (for its hoops and academic pretensions)? Maybe Sec takes NCSt or Duke to counter B1G taking UNC?
Whatever the case, it seems clear that Pitt, (as of right now) Syracuse, GT, Louisville, Wake… will be SOL for the big conferences. The B12 will have some interesting choices to make, of which of these to add. This is why as Crazy Paco says, it behooves Pitt to keep winning, winning, and winning some more, to keep raising our profile.
ACC or a different conference, it doesn't really matter. The question is, would you rather compete in a winnable conference or have the school make more money and be a mid-level team with zero chance of ever winning a mega SEC or Big 10 conference?
Texas is basically a country. 30 million people. UT is the "national team" in Texas. A&M delivers Houston and has a presence in other cities but UT is the national team. UT >>>>>>>>> A&M in terms of interest.
Maryland cant get out of its own way. No reason at all they cant be an MSU caliber program. And if they are MSU caliber, that means they can beat PSU occasionally so they only start with 2 losses, not 4
UCLA and USC will require that the B1G goes WEST.
They will not tolerate being ISLAND SCHOOLS.
The B1G will accommodate their wishes.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
OT: Tomlin extension not going over to well with local media:- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof
-
