Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="NJCuse97, post: 5280668, member: 5058"]
SEC has proven to me they take all sports differently than most other academic institutions/conferences do. After having watched that documentary on LSU and their NIL adoption, (done by Shaq mind you, since we're talking about PR shills) it was clear to me that they are pretty aggressive paying players or finding donors and opportunities to get NIL deals for athletes in all sports. I believe this is a big reason your basketball statement rings true. The Texas addition was a good one, but Texas is more cyclical than most of the top tier "legacy" SEC programs.

In the B1G, I don't see the P12 additions as factors. Yes Oregon had a great year, but I am not sure they have built a sustained machine the way others have, and are very cyclical like I just said Texas is. That said, I don't think the B1G is head and shoulders above the ACC. I have an admitted "reverse bias" but to me they are historically a 4 team conference with lots of 'also rans and tomato cans'. OSU, UM, and a rotating 'other two' - PSU, Wisconsin, every so often Iowa, in the past, MSU.

I don't think that is much different from me saying "newcomer SMU but - Clemson, FSU, every so often Pitt, VT, Miami and in the past UNC or GT".

The SEC felt they needed a partner conference to ease the expansion and break away process and the B1G was the next biggest in terms of spend and TV revenue, so it made the most sense. That could have been the ACC. I think the shared geographic  region may have influenced that decision process.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?