OT - UGA President's View - 4 Major Conferences
UGA President goes on record to state the impending reality - there will be four major football conferences (and one of them is the SEC). Which are the three other major football conferences in order of rank? B1G, Big 12, PAC 12, ACC, or Big East?
“I think effectively there are about four major football conferences right now,” University of Georgia president Michael Adams said. Adams said the four included the SEC, but he declined to say what the other major conferences were.
“I think there are some conferences that have devalued themselves in the whole process,” [and] “I don’t think the SEC is one of them.”
The SEC has no further expansion plans, Adams said, “that I know of.”
[Source: WSJ 11/28/12]
November 28th, 2012 at 7:03 PM ^
well, that depends on whether you mean in order of on-field performance or business performance. if the former, i would have to say, as of now and in order:
SEC
BIG 12
PAC 12
B1G
ACC
biznass:
B1G
SEC
PAC 12
ACC
BIG 12
do not underestimate the power of jim delany.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:06 PM ^
Luckily for us, your top list fluctuates very regularly. The bottom list does not.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:21 PM ^
haha hence the qualification "as of now"
but yes, the second list is far more logical. but on the flipside, this is still conference realignment and the ncaa, so logic is something we are in short supply of.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
Big 12 sucks. Kansas St. is overrated, Texas is horrid and still gets ranked (how can TEXAS be that bad based on pure talent alone?), Oklahoma... yawn. Okie State will ride off into the sunset after T. Boone passes, Kansas is a basketball school, Iowa State... who cares, Baylor stinks without RGIII (though they do have women's basketball!).
November 28th, 2012 at 7:10 PM ^
Yay, a post of nothing but personal opinions!
November 28th, 2012 at 7:21 PM ^
Yes, because personal opinions have never had a place on MGoBlog.
Or in david from wyoming's posts.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:23 PM ^
though personally, i was more annoyed by the utter lack of punctuation or formatting than the lack of intelligent thought.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:45 PM ^
There is a difference, at least to me, between "Big 12 sucks. Kansas St. is overrated, Texas is horrid..., Oklahoma... yawn" and meaning and contributing comments.
November 28th, 2012 at 10:00 PM ^
Do you always have a chip on your shoulder?
November 29th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^
no, its actually a 'hard edge'
November 29th, 2012 at 1:09 AM ^
Yay, another one of your sarcastic remarks!
November 29th, 2012 at 10:23 AM ^
I am done being impressed with his business acumen. People probably thought Gary Bettman was a good businessman when the NHL started expanding again in the late 90's/2000's.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:08 PM ^
I'd say it's undoubtedly the Pac 12, Big 12, and Big Ten as the three others. No way anyone could make an argument for the Big East or ACC. If you could, I'd like to hear it.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
ND, the one team locked into the national title game, is going to be in the ACC soon. One could make the case the ACC is roughly equal to the Big 12.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:12 PM ^
Is that a fact or a personal opinion?
November 28th, 2012 at 7:31 PM ^
Yeah, but as Boise State and a bunch of the other Big East teams have shown, you can back out pretty easily.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:42 PM ^
Assuming a 4 super conference regime, what would ND gain by backing out of the ACC and going full independent again?
November 28th, 2012 at 8:11 PM ^
ACC might be in bad shape if FSU, Miami, Clemson and Georgia Tech leave. If this happens and there are 4 major conferences, then ND will probably join the PAC 12/16.
For those who have the time, here are a couple interesting takes:
The largest unknown, however, still remains the most important - Maryland versus its former conference for the rights to $50 million. The result of those negotiations will determine whether this massive conference realignment will occur this offseason or somewhere down the road.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/the-sec-and-big-ten-will-have-16-members.php
http://www.jwtns.com/2012/11/louisville-to-acc-realignment-drama.html
November 29th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
IMO this next year could be very pivotal for conference alignment. What happens with the MD exit fee from ACC, could be the lynch-pin. If it is lessened to any significant degree it could induce a Florida State/(and whoever) departure. And personally, if I had any input into Big12, I would continually court Florida State and do whatever it took to bring them onboard. With FSU in the fold, Big12 is assured a major role no matter what ensues.
November 29th, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^
they have a scheduling agreement only for Football which means ND is not eligible to win a division or play in the conf championship game. So that means they are not in the ACC.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:16 PM ^
Louisville is an upgrade to Maryland. Thus, he could see the ACC as being marginally stronger.
Given most folks see Rutgers and Maryland as diluting the overall quality of the B1G in football, he definitely could be talking about the B1G as devaluing themselves in the process - from a competitive standpoint.
November 29th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
“Could”, maybe, but doubtful; you may wish to rethink your statement. You have to use a perspective other than “fan’s view”. This is a university president speaking, someone appreciative of income, endowments, grants and other fiscal concerns to keep an institution operating. He’s not looking at athletic competition or quality, and I am sure he sees the profits B1G is generating. So I doubt he really thinks the B1G deteriorated much by strengthening their presence in the east coast TV market.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:19 PM ^
So they have that going for them.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:52 PM ^
November 28th, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^
Should the Big 12 collapse, It will be a battle amongst the B1G, Pac 12, and SEC for Texas and Oklahoma with the other conferences picking up the scraps i.e. K-St, Ok St, etc. Imagine if Texas and OU decide to go to either the Pac 12 or SEC and the B1G is stuck adding Iowa St and TCU. If you thought adding Maryland and Rutgers got a negative reaction...
November 28th, 2012 at 8:12 PM ^
We would never be stuck to pick up teams we didn't want. But getting Kansas wouldn't be the end of the world.
November 29th, 2012 at 12:21 PM ^
I like Kansas also, but what does it give us we don’t already have. We already passed on Missouri, which would have given us better markets. All I want from the Big12 is Okla or TX but that won't happen.
November 29th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
If the SEC expands it will be into Virginia and/or North Carolina. Bank on it! (I am excluding ND in any discussion.)
They have a rule to only pick up on school per state and have long coveted the hole NC leaves in their foot-print. They have wanted UNC for a while, but the Tarheels don’t want to leave the “Tobacco Road” clan. They may take NCState if pushed. They don’t want Texas, not now they got all they wanted from the state with TexasAM. If they take VaTech, watch for UVa to eye the B1G longingly.
November 29th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
Texas could have it's pick of any conference. Not sure why you think SEC wouldn't want them.
November 29th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^
SEC won’t touch UTexas. What will UT give them that they haven’t already got with the addition of TexasAM? Mark my words, in 10 years TAMU is just as large as UT in branding and prestige. That was an incredible move for the SEC. They have access to the recruits, notoriety, and viewers in all of TX. With the unfurling of the SEC network they don’t want the argument they would have with UT and the Longhorn Network. They got all the favorable ability to advance their brand and siphon off the TX media dollars, WITHOUT dealing with the demi-god mentality of UT. UT won’t leave until forced, they have it made right now. Nope, don’t ever see SEC taking on UT. They may go after Okla if they get the chance. Pac12 and B1G are the only ones that would benefit from a UT addition. (And I see the Pac12 getting Texas Tech first in a similar play as SEC | TAMU)
November 28th, 2012 at 8:22 PM ^
Who exactly does anyone care about in the ACC? Half of ACC is the old Big East. FSU and Clemson basically, and Clemson is a far cry from Texas or Ok.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:24 PM ^
There are definitely a lot of people who care about UNC and VT football, and there's the whole UNC-Duke basketball thing. The Miami Hurricanes could always make a comeback.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:49 PM ^
Based on the major attendance problems Miami is heving and the upcoming NCAA sanctions its going to be a while before they make any kind of comback. The prevailing sentiment in most of realignment talk is that the business of college football is the driving factor not basketball. While obviously not UNC-Duke Kansas and Texas have great basketball programs. You can point to programs like Ok St. (because of the money they behind them) and compare them to VT.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:22 PM ^
Who exactly does anyone care about in the ACC? Half of ACC is the old Big East. FSU and Clemson basically, and Clemson is a far cry from Texas or Ok.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:27 PM ^
"Texas and Oklahoma are the only teams left in the Big 12 that anyone cares about."
Big 12 attendance runs about 12,000/game ahead of the ACC and the difference isn't just in the top two schools, it runs from top to bottom of the conferences. Average attendance at a few Big 12 schools:
- Iowa St. 53,647
- Kansas St. 49,030
- Oklahoma St. 57,229
- West Virginia 56,532
- Texas Tech 55,347
Someone must care about those teams, because they're coming to their games. Nobody in the Big 12 has, or ever has had as far as I know, anything like the empty-stadium syndrome Miami is going through.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:29 PM ^
exactly. there's a lot more to do and see on the east coast than there are on the plains. and in texas, if there's football to be watched, people will come watch it.
however, the marketing value of those east coast schools is higher IMO.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:30 PM ^
I get what you're saying, but there's a big difference between "people around the country care about you" and "lots of your locals go to the games."
November 28th, 2012 at 8:57 PM ^
Other than FSU (Miami used to) who has a national following in football that comes close to comparing to Texas or Oklahoma? When the yearly debate about who BCS bowls want other than FSU no one in the ACC is someone bowls fight over to get.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:00 PM ^
I said no one cares about the Big 12 teams other than Texas and Oklahoma. The top 2 in the Big 12 are better than the top 2 in the ACC. However, the bulk of the ACC is better (albeit slightly) than the Big 12.
Don't forget the ND addition. That could be a major card for the ACC.
November 29th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
Sorry, Wolv, love ya’ but have to disagree with ya’. It is also the level of the support. I lived in Iowa, Midwest, southeast, east coast, and now CA. The thing to remember is it is not the casual fan we are talking about here. It is the die-hard, support-your-team-at-all-costs, and the-week-revolves-around-the-game mentality. They ALL watch the games in those areas, men, women, children, grandpas, grandmas and even animals!! (ok, only the domesticated ones. /s) That is what they live for. (Also, many of those mid/southwest schools tend to keep their graduates at home and more local.) They buy the tickets, watch the games, and buy the merchandise. They don't have the variety for entertainment. All of which generates revenue, fan base, and TV viewer-ship = $$$. That doesn’t happen here on the coast, and not on the east coast for college much north of the Carolinas.
November 29th, 2012 at 1:47 PM ^
Taking a different tack on this argument, TV football revenues per team in the ACC are about $17 million/year; the other four conferences are all >$20 million.
ACC football is a lesser television draw, and apparently network execs expected that to continue to be the case through 2025.
I think we're talking about two different groups here. One is what you describe, the passionate fan of a particular school who's going to watch his team every Saturday regardless. The other is the football fan deciding which game to watch in a different time slot, say on Saturday evening after his team's already played. And the ACC's currently losing out on both counts. The name brands on the basketball court don't translate into television eyeballs during football season.
November 29th, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^
True, not sure if that is a factor in assessing revenue but it could. (Heard it was just a poor contract negotiated by ACC.) One thing I am learning here on west coast, if UofM plays the early game I have a better chance to watch it than later as it doesn’t compete with the local teams. So ACC would suffer nationally there also, as it would be competing with all the Eastern Time zone games, which includes the B1G and SEC. The Big12 has less competition in the Central and Mountain Time zones.
Have to remember with bowls also; they select teams that provide loyal fans to fill their stadiums as well as TV revenue. The fervent fans tend to travel more often, which tend to be in the south/Midwest.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:03 PM ^
Who is it in the ACC that's a national draw in that sense? Have you ever seen anyone wearing a Duke football jersey? Are people tuning in to see N.C.State/Wake Forest over a comparable Big 12 game like Baylor/Texas Tech?
If you line up Big 12 vs. ACC I think the Big 12 team is a bigger name, nationally, pretty much all the way up and down. Clustering some ACC teams to balance out size of conference you get something like:
- Texas vs. Florida State
- Oklahoma vs. Clemson
- Kansas State vs. Virginia Tech/Miami
- West Virginia vs. Georgia Tech
- Oklahoma State vs. Boston College
- Texas Tech vs. North Carolina
- Baylor vs. Maryland
- TCU vs. Virginia/North Carolina State
- Kansas vs.Wake Forest
- Iowa State vs. Duke
The ACC wins slot #3, but that's about it. And Miami may very well have killed their brand.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:10 PM ^
I would only give the Big 12 the edge for 1 and 2 (as I've already conceded) but only OK St. and Kansas after that. Do you think people across the country care about teams like ISU, TCU, Baylor, TTU or Kansas State? Those ACC teams might be worse at football currently, but they are much larger brands. Find someone outside of Texas who cares about TCU, Baylor or TTU. And K-State and ISU are second fiddle in their own small states.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:30 PM ^
Where do you live, that you think people across the country care about Duke football? Or any of the North Carolina schools for that matter, or Virginia or Maryland?
The bottom half of the ACC is a black hole of national football disinterest that I don't think any other major conference comes close to (and no I don't consider the Big East a major conference). On the live football threads here there are usually people watching, if in disbelief, the Baylor/West Virginia weirdness. Wake Forest and N.C. State aren't getting a lot of eyeballs.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:34 PM ^
This might come as a surprise based on my username, but I live in Los Angeles. The cool thing about LA is that there are people from all over the country here, so you get a pretty non-regional look at the country. And I see a lot more GT or Duke or BC than I see Iowa State, Baylor or Texas Tech.
I agree with you on WF, they are a very small, private school. Outside of that, the ACC schools have a lot better brand than the Big 12 schools.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:47 PM ^
The ACC does have better brands in basketball, but none of these realignment moves appear to be about basketball. Even basketball schools like SD St. jumped conferences for football reasons that ended up hurting their basketball program. Duke and UNC have more of a national following then shools like West Virginia or Baylor, but does that extend to football? I doubt it does. The other advantage I think Big12 has is that the SEC is going to be looking to expand and they are already into Texas. It appears they are going to be looking at ACC schools when they expand next. The Pac12 could be a threat to the Big12, but that blew up over Texas last time and I don't see them being any easier to deal with in the future.
November 29th, 2012 at 8:47 AM ^
...that the Pac 10 is still a threat to the Big 12. We already know that they tried a big poach a couple of years ago and with other conferences expanding, they have almost no choice but to go after Big12 teams.
In fact, I think Pac 10 expansion will be the ultimate death knell to the Big 12. The real question is whether it includes Texas or not. If Notre Dame can continue to find a niche as an independent, it's possible that Texas will also attempt a similar role rather than submitting to the equality & fraternity required of successful conferences.
At this point, those are really the two big wild cards (Texas & Notre Dame) that are holding up the consolidation of power into 4 mega conferences. No doubt the powerful conference dons are trying to cajole the Irish & Longhorns into joining their club but they might just say f it and move ahead without them.
At any rate, it's interesting to see how it'll play out.
November 29th, 2012 at 3:28 PM ^
Agree that the Big 12 is the logical choice for the Pac-12 expansion. However, the key schools with that are Texas and OU. As long as those two schools remain committed to the Big 12 I don't think the lesser schools bolt (the exception could be the Kansas schools).
November 28th, 2012 at 9:39 PM ^
Georg Tech and Louisvile are both the second fiddle in their states and by a lot. You can make the same argument about no one caring about Louisville, WF, BC, NC St. and VT out of their own state as well. VT in football may well be like Uconn in basketball. Once Beamer goes they may take a big hit. Better to be 3rd or 4th in a state like Texas than it is to be that in North Carolina. Out of the entire ACC the only football schools are FSU, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, and VT. Out of those FSU clearly is not committed to that conference long term, Miami is a mess, Georgia Tech is rumored to be next on the Big10's list.
In my opinion it is way better to have an advantage at the top of your conference than at the bottom and the Big12 is clearly better at the top.