Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="sufandu, post: 5358613, member: 874"] My opening sentence isn't a contradiction. The idea is about having schools that draw viewership from outside their inherent fanbase. ESPN didn't fall in love with the SEC because Auburn is better than BC. They did that because the conference won 14 of the last 26 NCs beginning with the BCS era and really it's more about winning the last 13 of 18, including 7 in a row. They drew/draw viewership outside of their fanbase. They were a conference of small markets that became must see TV for the entire country. Thank you for explaining the popularity of football in Texas. I was completely unaware. Tell me, why was the Big 12 not strong enough to keep it's biggest schools when they had the state of Texas locked down? Giant population. The most football obsessed. They should have been the equal of the SEC. They weren't. It's a simple answer. They didn't win enough. Had Texas, Nebraska, A&M, and Oklahoma had things rolling the way Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia did, they would have been the conference making a ton of money, grabbing schools from other leagues. Had Miami remained Miami after their move, FSU not fallen off, Virginia Tech maintained their very good success, and Clemson still came on, the disparity between SEC and ACC would've been much smaller. Had the Big 12 and ACC been more succesful and denied the SEC about half of the NCs they won, they wouldn't have become the conference ESPN obsesses over. If you're talking about scratching and clawing for mere survival, adding the types of schools being suggested is the strategy, at least for a while. If we want to narrow the gap, it won't be enough. Any land grant schools and state flagship schools that are worth anything have already been grabbed. The rest are schools that weren't good enough to be wanted and are mere scraps that couldn't keep their former conferences alive. If TV markets and alumni bases for schools like Arizona, USC, Oregon, and UCLA were enough of a draw, the PAC would've had enough power/money to prevent dissolving. It's not. Adding schools like SMU is the best bet. They are in the type of market you describe, they have money, and they seem to have the commitment to winning. If they can be a consistent top 10-15 team, they can be a huge boost. If they can't, it won't matter that they're in the DFW market. Who else fits that profile of well funded sleeping giant in this NIL era? That is who we need, teams on the cusp of making the jump to big time status that will be good enough to draw viewership OUTSIDE of their market and alumni base. When a fan is done watching their team's game, we want them tuning into games from our conference. We want Michigan fans talking about SMU and tuning in. We want Alabama fans talking about us and watching after their game is over. That's what made the SEC king. That's what moves the needle. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?