SEC & Big 10

Danny, It was very entertaining and everything AJ said is true -- but -- he did not cover one of the most important issues: Why would teams from the PAC 10 join the ACC along with schools like TCU, Houston, OK State, etc. Right now they are lobbying to join the BIG14 forming western division that will eventually play the champ of the midwest or eastern division. Yes, there will be some interdivisional games, but not all games are 1/2, 3/4, or coast to coast. For that they will get the BIG14 payoff. What do they get from the ACC -- yes, it has that contract until 2036, but as soon as it begins to renegotiate there might be a time where schools like Clemson can leave, if they are not careful. I didn't hear any reasons why it would be in the best interests of Oregon, for example, to join the ACC. Maybe, I just missed it, so let me know.

Moreover, if this merger happens it will be the first thing this new commish has made happen that has any consequence. But, in my heart of hearts, I am hoping and praying AJ's theory comes to be.
To be honest I was listening to it with my wife and kid in the car so you know how that goes. From what I could focus seemed to rah rah then reality. Like you, I hope its a correct thought process.
 

CDB

Well-known member
Penny is right and danny boy is right. One thing I believe is that Jarmond did what an AD is supposed to do and took a athletics program that was in the red and immediately it is in the black -- and that means he doesn't have to get rid of 2-5 minor sports. Great move there. And we had him, but let him walk to a program that was in trouble -- and all I hear on this board is how we cannot keep folks from the better programs -- UCLA is no longer relevant in football -- it's all about basketball and we lost him because no one here let him do his thing. Notice we quickly lost his replacement -- all we hear about now is how our new guy will not leave -- but the real question is why do we keep losing ADs at a major college five football school after only a couple of years??? hmmm?
 

AGPennyPacker

Well-known member
Perhaps, but its all about the $$$ and they got it!!!
Sometimes there are maybe harder but definitively better routes to get to that money... like private branding deals...

If you are talking Football alone... maybe their move makes SOME sense, but USC and UCLA could have easily asked and gotten any outside conference match-up they desired.

Problem is that now ALL of their minor sports will have to compete against different time zones and long traveling and many kids will be deterred by all of this... including the alumni that will have less chances to follow their teams...

Not to mention a conflict of sports programs... I doubt that Big10 Schools will add Beach Volley and many similar Sports that Characterize West Coast Schools and vice versa...
 

CDB

Well-known member
Completely agree -- but sometimes when a Mack Truck is rushing down the road and you are in the way, you have to do something immediately to avoid disaster that you may later regret. And, there are ways to compete is some sports and not in others even while in a conference. so, it is possible Jar will seek to join closer to home leagues in some of the minor sports, and for all we know, he may have already negotiated that. I means who really cares about some of those sports other than those who are involved and their families. I never remember getting excited about how NC Sailing Team of when one of our skiers or tennis players did great -- so, maybe that is where he will go. I agree that asking a full time student who is on no more than 1/2 scholarship to risk their grades to a travel schedule that will make success in the classroom difficult and very costly is a hard route to take.

I will especially miss this board because of the really great discussions we have had here. None of the rah rah -- more of the wisdom. Thanks for all of that over the past few years.
 

AGPennyPacker

Well-known member
CDB
I have actually suggested that BC should have gotten rid of almost 1/2 of its minor sports…. So you have me in more agreement than you can imagine…

My point here is that we often think that these AD’s are brilliant but I disagree… they only look at the easy way out and I will never forget how Jarmond essentially extended a horrible JC because he did not want to do his due diligence…

He eventually got Hafley but even that took way too long…
 

CDB

Well-known member
I don't disagree, but most folks forget that AD's are graded on money not athletic success -- coaches are graded on athletic success. When Gene D got voted AD of the year by his peers, it wasn't because of any coaching decisions -- it was because he got BC into the ACC -- despite tremendous push back from some of the schools -- and, it would seem now, maybe those schools had pretty good arguments. So Jarmond could take all the time he wanted with Christian and wasn't in any jeopardy with his bosses, but if he couldn't balance the books he could be called on the carpet. UCLA was faced with losses in athletics and Jarmond had to do something. So, he buys himself time -- and I don't think he put his job at risk, because at least he did something to protect UCLA in a dying league and now the school has financial stability. Right now he is probably negotiating a raise. The regret may come later after the traveling starts, but right now he looks like hero to the school and alums.

What is the ACC trying to do right now -- get schools from all over the country to strengthen the league -- the ACC isn't worried about traveling right now and I don't think there would be an outcry if we came up with a better and lasting league about travel -- what there would be is relief and probably "attaboys."
 

NEDSH

Member
If the SEC is so great how is it they lack elite talent? Over the past 23 years that conference has produced just one NFL defensive player of the year. Gilmore . Who probably didn't deserve it. By contrast the ACC had nine DOPYs and the Big 10 six. So much for dominance. The ACC produces better QBs for the NFL than the SEC.
 

NEDSH

Member
Nothing to worry about in coll football expansion. The SEC and Big 10 are staying at 16 teams ND will probably stay an independent. If they could give BC a 6th game a possible exit from the ESPN contract can be had. Why get cheated out of a $ billion. if you can avoid it. ABC-ESPN had the Epstein pedophile story for years but protected him.The moral terpitude of that network should be sufficient to void the contract
 

micmon

Active member
It's anyone's guess as to what happens next. Maybe nothing for a bit? Maybe see how 16 teams work out before you think about 20? Twice as big isn't twice as good if you don't do it right.

The ACC may just have a stay for a little while. What needs to happen during this time is for schools like FSU and Miami (or someone else) to get back into the national picture. Perhaps make ESPN stop and think, why do we want to add Clemson and FSU to the SEC at top dollar when the ACC is such a bargain?

Clemson and FSU could throw themselves at the SEC, but nothing will happen ESPN won't pay for.
 

CDB

Well-known member
The SEC might claim its dominance due to Alabama that has won 18 NC's. I don't think any of the Power Five Conferences can claim dominance in terms of elite talent as over 2/3 of the NFL players went to none Power Five schools. But in terms of winning national championships at the college level, they have dominated in the past few years. As to voiding the ESPN contract, if Clemson and the Florida ACC schools could have voided the contract, it would have already been done and they would be in the SEC. Several lawyers have told me it would be almost impossible to void.
 

CDB

Well-known member
I am so much going to miss the knowledge of the posters on this board. I have read a few threads on Eagleinsider and almost feel asleep. I wish you the best, my friend. We may not always agree, but that is what makes this board so special— we don’t lose respect for the other because of the respect that lister has earned. Godspeed
 

CDB

Well-known member
On a different topic what do you all think of Mike Farrell's assessment that if Arch Manning had a different last name, he would one be rated a high 3 rather than a 5 star? His comments sure are upsetting tons of Texas folks down here? But TX is protected no matter what as they also have Quinn Ewers who i have watched in person and is a terrific athlete.
 

micmon

Active member
I haven't seen anything of Arch Manning or any other Class of '23 QB, so have no opinion on the accuracy or otherwise of Farrell's comments. Farrell is simply admitting that ratings can be influenced by factors other than evaluated ability. That's obvious to anyone based on comparing ratings coming out of HS and eventual NFL draft position.
 

AGPennyPacker

Well-known member
On a different topic what do you all think of Mike Farrell's assessment that if Arch Manning had a different last name, he would one be rated a high 3 rather than a 5 star? His comments sure are upsetting tons of Texas folks down here? But TX is protected no matter what as they also have Quinn Ewers who i have watched in person and is a terrific athlete.
Tell the Folks in Texas that if would have Committed to BC... he would have immediately been downgraded to a 2 Star....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CDB
Top