How UConn athletic director David Benedict views conference realignment: ‘Landscape is changing’ (Borges)

[McLovin]

Am I the only one puzzled by this? I haven't seen it explained.

We all remember BC lobbying hard to keep UConn out of the ACC to protect their recruiting advantage of being the only ACC member school in New England. We've also heard of Florida and South Carolina not wanting FSU and Clemson added to their respective SEC footprints---and that UNC or UVA would be better choices since they create new markets for the SEC.

So given all that, why would the B1G's first move be USC and UCLA, both from Los Angeles. Why wouldn't USC have lobbied against UCLA to protect their "advantage" of being the B1G's Southern California school? And why wouldn't the B1G have wanted to pivot after USC to another untapped geographic market (Stanford, Oregon etc).

Because the BIG probably wanted both brands to lock up the entire market and ensure the SEC can’t have any foothold in L.A.

Even if one didn’t want the other, they didn’t have the “leverage” that BC had back in 2011. BIG wasn’t only going to take only 1, it was clearly a strategic and planned move.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Am I the only one puzzled by this? I haven't seen it explained.

We all remember BC lobbying hard to keep UConn out of the ACC to protect their recruiting advantage of being the only ACC member school in New England. We've also heard of Florida and South Carolina not wanting FSU and Clemson added to their respective SEC footprints---and that UNC or UVA would be better choices since they create new markets for the SEC.

So given all that, why would the B1G's first move be USC and UCLA, both from Los Angeles. Why wouldn't USC have lobbied against UCLA to protect their "advantage" of being the B1G's Southern California school? And why wouldn't the B1G have wanted to pivot after USC to another untapped geographic market (Stanford, Oregon etc).

USC has nothing to fear from UCLA in football and vice versa in basketball. They aren't as stupid as BC was. Those two are helped by playing each other. BC would have been helped by having a local rival as well. Florida has to deal with FSU (and Miami) and South Carolina has to deal with Clemson whether they are in the same league or not. Same with A&M and Texas. UConn was unique because they left us in a non P5. Not the case for any of these others.

 

[bendm]

SDS sources: SEC wants to end expansion race, stay at 16 teams

The SEC wants to keep the expansion capped at 16 teams. Our SEC experts here at SDS discuss what this looks like for the future of the league

www.saturdaydownsouth.com

Perhaps they realized the error of their ways but not before the big east, big12, and pac were destroyed. F em.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Am I the only one puzzled by this? I haven't seen it explained.

We all remember BC lobbying hard to keep UConn out of the ACC to protect their recruiting advantage of being the only ACC member school in New England. We've also heard of Florida and South Carolina not wanting FSU and Clemson added to their respective SEC footprints---and that UNC or UVA would be better choices since they create new markets for the SEC.

So given all that, why would the B1G's first move be USC and UCLA, both from Los Angeles. Why wouldn't USC have lobbied against UCLA to protect their "advantage" of being the B1G's Southern California school? And why wouldn't the B1G have wanted to pivot after USC to another untapped geographic market (Stanford, Oregon etc).

The most recent realignment moves from the big two were more acquiring valuable assets to increase their portfolio than anything else.

We are now playing by a different set of rules as these two conferences (only these two) are now playing to a different set of goals.

 

[Waquoit]

Am I the only one puzzled by this? I haven't seen it explained.

We all remember BC lobbying hard to keep UConn out of the ACC to protect their recruiting advantage of being the only ACC member school in New England...

BCU was wrong. Their cherished exclusivity backfired.