The Big10 added USC because they are a traditional football power, not for cable boxes. Fox wanted UCLA to make sure the PAC had no LA presence to weaken their potential contract. If cable boxes were the reason then they would have added Washington and Arizona St to complete the cable box takeover.
apnews.com
While that does seem to be the trend, eventually you run out of brands - at which point markets do start to matter again. And as the sport's largest fan bases are congregated into two or three leagues, someone's going to strike oil by building the brand through local talent. We've seen it to varying degrees in every era, and I think that's part of why the ACC took a flyer on SMU.
pick a school Blue Devil boy. You with the Huskies FBS or not?
If that is true, then FSU should thank the ACC for not listening to them
That will likely change with the legal filing. Right?
Some contract attorneys have begun weighing in on the contracts, GOR, and legal complaint. There was a reason this document was under lock and key. ACC / ESPN is in some deep s*&t as the enforcability will be difficult. Expect a settlement for fairly low $ number. Also, go back to previous ACC commissioner (Swofford) abd dealings with his son's company. (Raycom) Good for FSU to bust up the corupt business dealings.
I see GT having value over Louisville, WF, BC, Cuse. But probably not Pitt or Duke.
I think they are constrained in terms of large markets and affluence when compared to the Big10. And they don't seemed too interested in expanding and seemingly not very north in general nor west of TX. Above-board NIL, future athlete employee status, and the transfer portal will continue to level the playing field.
I think the SEC is not concerned because if they wanted to, they could have basically any major school they wanted outside of Ohio St, Penn St, Michigan. The thing is, they don't want to expand and split the money anymore. They're looking at the B1G and their massive deal and then seeing all the mouths they need to feed. Wanna add FSU, UVa, and UNC and spread the wealth thinner? I'm sure the SEC would have no issue watching that happen.
I think there's truth in a lot of what you say but for me I think they'll look back in 25 years and think they probably didn't expand enough/quickly enough when the B1G added valuable properties. Bottom line, the B1G is thinking strategically and the SEC is thinking tactically. The B1G has always thought bigger picture in terms of academics, research, donor relations, business acumen, markets, etc. The SEC is more about winning football games now.
I agree with both and for each, they are expanding what’s best for them. The SEC got the biggest fish so far with Texas, but the nationwide aspect of the Big10 spreads the image of the member schools to so many areas. If the Big10 can get FSU, they will truly be in almost every corner of the nation (I know one way to fix the NE hole). The SEC is doing it their way as well with southern pride and state rivalries. I think the duo of Oklahoma and Texas are such a home run that almost nothing outside of ND the Big10 can do can match it. The SEC does not need to add anybody else and they will be set for what they want to do.
