Horns247 Board

Since I know you're all dying to hear my thoughts I won't delay any further.

1. I agree with others that Clemson makes as much or more sense than Georgia Tech and Louisville. I get that GT is in Atlanta but it's not as much about market size as it is penetration. More people in Georgia/Atlanta may watch GT than Clemson (although Clemson has a fairly strong presence) but will more people outside of Georgia watch GT or Clemson? I don't know, but that's the question that should be being asked. As far as Louisville...HUH?! I'm not sure what they bring if Clemson doesn't bring enough. Kentucky sure isn't a highly populous state. I think UL makes a solid #14 and a great #16 type option. Good all-around athletics and a rival to Kansas basketball. But they don't have the great location and I don't think they have that much name cache nationally.

2. IF Clemson is out for whatever reason, between GT and UL, FSU would ONLY leave for the Big 12 with GT. UL is an absolute deal breaker. I have no sources and am not a decision-maker but I can tell you that line of thinking is/would be nearly unanimous amongst FSU faithful.

3. I saw someone say the Big 12 should just add FSU, stick at 11 for a year, see what happens and then decide what to do after that. Feel confident in saying FSU wouldn't do that. There'd need to be another southeastern school to make it work (Miami, Clemson, GT, VT would work, other schools, probably not). I don't even think FSU joining to make 11 and the Big 12 "promising" to add other schools later would be enough. There'd be no guarantee, FSU would lose all its leverage and we could potentially lose multiple, valuable, regional matchups.

4. If you're willing to create a CG (again) and go to 12, why stop there? Why not go to 14? It'd increase your eastern footprint. It'd make travel easier on the eastern schools. It'd potentially incorporate existing rivalries into the Big 12. I really don't see how it'd lose money for the Big 12, either. I think the pie would get bigger, not be split more ways. There are over 40 million residents in the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia. That would more than double the Big 12's current footprint.

On top of that, why only take take two to get to 12, de-stabilize the ACC and then let the SEC and Big Ten potentially finish the conference off by taking the remaining quality members? The Big 12 being stuck at 12 while the SEC and Big Ten are possibly expanding to 16 wouldn't seem like a desirable situation. I don't expect many favorable responses about expanding past 12 since even going to 12 seems to be a point of contention but I think it makes much more sense than stopping at 12.

More here would like to see more than 12 than you think. To me one of the problems is that the Big 12 has been some what regional and therefore they do not understand how diehard sports fans in the Southeast are. We go to a Clemson game each year and understand that they would bring more TV's in Atlanta and elsewhere than most expect. I think Big 12 sports (all sports) would do well in the Southeast.

They have been wrong before.

Good thoughts

1.) From reading a lot of different sources on the matter it appears Clemson has the commitment issues not the Big 12 or Texas/OU. I buy the tv numbers argument about Clemson.

2.) If Clemson is out then I wouldn't mind GTech whatsoever. They're not as good of an addition as Clemson but I like their athletics and academics. However, this is another reason I don't believe the Clemson tv numbers mumbo jumbo. If Clemson ain't moving the dial than GTech and certainly not Louisville are either.

3.) Just stupid idea and anyone suggesting should give up on life. This is like the worst all worlds for everyone. FSU has no regional partner. WVU has no regional partner. The Big 12 has no additional revenue or SOS bump from a CCG. Everyone has higher travel costs. Logically it doesn't pass muster but I've almost given up on people using logic on message boards.

4.) You're preaching to the choir here but let's discuss some of these things.

First, you have to realize you're dealing with a lot of old conservative white guys. They like things the way they are most of the time b/c of the guaranteed income. This goes for people at the Universities, Conferences, Bowls AND the Networks. Nothing is going to move fast. It will feel like seeing the finish line of a marathon and deciding to get down on the ground and backstroke to it instead of sprinting. Some of this has to do with their nature, avoiding litigation, relationships, timing, etc.. Bottom line is it's hard enough getting all interests aligned to move one team much less 4 or more.

Second, the discussion about money is a nuanced one. Most simply assumes the money from the networks is the be all end all. It's not obviously. It's a big component though. Tier one and two broadcasters want more than inventory. They want inventory they can sell. This is where having big names come into play. The key is actually ensuring the overall pie doesn't shrink. To do that you have to evaluate costs. So in a round about way adding more teams might actually increase the pie if it reduced costs, specifically travel costs.

Other factors to be considered are the future landscape of college football, scheduling, strategic alignment and tier 3 delivery. A lot of those are all unknown by us although if Notre Dame is Deloss Dodds white whale weakening the ACC would be strategically a strong move.

TV numbers: FSU last year 31 mil Clemson 29 mil.

AS far as Clemson: one of you answer this: how can Clemson drag their feet with no offer?

Sounds like there's gonna have to be a bump somewhere.