|
Replies: 45
| visibility 472
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
SEC logic? (long)
Dec 6, 2012, 8:30 AM
|
|
All I keep hearing is that the SEC won't add Clemson because we are already inside their footprint. I have to come clean....THIS IS DRIVING ME CRAZY!
What ever happened to adding schools, and more specifically in this case, football programs that ENHANCE the product? Say what you want about NASCAR and the NHL, but they were exponentially better 20 years ago. Why? because they hadn't diluted the product by going into geographies with no natural interest.
This at its core, is about TV money. What's a more enticing game on any given saturday to a casual fan: Mizzou vs. anyone in the SEC or Clemson vs. Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, USuC, LSU, TA&M (or anyone else in the SEC?) BECAUSE of our geography we have natural rivalries with half the league! And to me- that is way more compelling TV.
That's what surprised me about the Mizzou addition last year. The SEC owns college football, not because of the footprint of the conference, but because the product. The on field play, stadia, fan bases, rivalries etc. are the best in the country.
Clemson has improvements to make if we hope to challenge the top half of the SEC on the field- but that would come in time. What we already have that so many schools can't touch is the culture.
|
|
|
|
 |
Rookie [13]
TigerPulse: 19%
2
|
Re: SEC logic? (long)
Dec 6, 2012, 8:41 AM
|
|
Agree 100%. Great post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6245]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
While your points are valid and I happen to agree with you..
Dec 6, 2012, 8:42 AM
|
|
its just the way it is. I have said this for several years: BC was brought into the ACC because of POTENTIAL N.E. area viewers. If memory serves that was in 04. We now have numbers (or should) for 8 years of television market shares in that area. Anyone ever seen them? I'd love to know just how many sets are tuned into BC football in Boston. My guess is....not many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18213]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 22450
Joined: 1999
|
Which would be statistical data very well-analyzed by
Dec 6, 2012, 10:25 AM
|
|
the networks and conference leadership and would support the OP's point. If expanding the footprint doesn't necessarily improve ratings, then enhancing the product would be a better strategy. That's why I still think CU and FSU to the $EC could happen. Lock up the existing footprint, enhance the product and quite possibly boost ratings in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6245]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Another example of "potential" viewers
Dec 6, 2012, 10:44 AM
|
|
this past spring I was channel surfing and came across Mizzou vs. Illinois in baseball being played at Busch Memorial in St Louis. I think "how cool is that?!" I settled in to watch. Then...reality: There couldn't have been 500 people at that game.
I have family in that area and I'd be willing to bet if I called any one of them and asked what Mizzou's record was in football this year they couldn't tell me. They don't CARE about college football there. Blues, Cards and Rams.
On a separate thought..could you imagine if we squared off against the Coots in baseball at Turner Field? Bet that'd be a crowd.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
I'm no expert. But if the conference Network is on a cable
Dec 6, 2012, 10:52 AM
[ in reply to Which would be statistical data very well-analyzed by ] |
|
or satellite package, fees will be collected from people who don't even have an interest in college sports. The conferences and schools have done their homework. I don't think that the Big 10 would be continuing their network if it was not a financial bonanza.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7390]
TigerPulse: 90%
42
|
No more than 5 yrs & we're in the SEC.
Dec 6, 2012, 8:44 AM
|
|
When I first registered here my 1st post was, "Clemson to the SEC. How long?)
Look at the schools in the SEC; we've always been them.
Look at the schools they just added; we ARE them. (Clemson began arguably an A&M-type school?)
It is our destiny; that conference was made for us. The ACC may survive, but not as a major conference competitive in football. I could be wrong but unless Miami, UNC, & Va. Tech, & maybe even at least one more school can consistently help us make the ACC look respectable I don't see Clemson anywhere but the SEC in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [54375]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 23029
Joined: 1998
|
Well, depending on who you believe
Dec 6, 2012, 8:58 AM
|
|
but some of the expansion bloggers that have been going on about expansion for a while, are now saying that Clemson may be in the mix for addition to the SEC. This charge is supposedly being led by Alabama.
My opinion is that Clemson's administration is holding out for an SEC invite, but it is a long shot. Either way, Clemson will not be left behind in the shell of the ACC.
Take it with a grade of slaw......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Expansion in recent years at every conference has been about
Dec 6, 2012, 9:15 AM
|
|
adding new TV markets. The reason Missouri and Texas A&M are in is because the value that they would bring to a SEC Network. I'm no expert on this stuff. But as I understand it, a conference would get more in fees if a SEC Network or Big 10 Network goes into a state where they are not already in. That makes sense. Maryland and Rutgers bring nothing to the Big 10 except new markets for the Big 10 Network. And they certainly are not a cultural nor geographical fit. They have lousy or so-so football programs. They have no traditional or natural rivals in the Big 10. You have to remember it is hard to get the networks (CBS, ESPN, etc), especially in this economy, to pay more to the conferences for adding teams. And certainly we couldn't expect SEC teams to take paycuts to bring us in (and they would have to take paycuts if they are adding more teams yet the networks balk at paying them more). So, the only way expansion makes sense is by adding new geography, to be paid for through a conference network. Believe me, I'd love nothing better than to be in the SEC. But, it ain't in the cards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Expansion in recent years at every conference has been about
Dec 6, 2012, 9:40 AM
|
|
While I don't disagree with your explanation- I have to say that i believe that this kind of growth is unsustainable. Eventually you'll run out of new goegraphies and in the meantime dilute your on-field product. Just because a given network is using geography as a bargaining chip doesn't mean its the right thing to do! I'm contending that over time, a quality on-field product and (in the case of the south: bitter) rivalries and rabid fan bases will win out EVERY TIME.
Take the BC example once more here...just because BC is in the ACC doesn't make anyone in New England give a rip about UNC vs. UVA, or even BC! Conferences with an eye on the future need to be developing the best product. That's the only way to turn the tide on the networks and regain control at the negotiating table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Conferences expand at most to 16. Anytime conferences
Dec 6, 2012, 10:14 AM
|
|
go beyond that number, it becomes umanageable. That's why you see a short lifespan of huge conferences. From what I hear even 14 causes heartburn. But with 16, you can neatly divide into two 8-team divisions. So, you won't see conferences going beyond that number. I think it's a poorly kept secret that the SEC wants to get into the North Carolina and Virginia markets. And it's another poorly kept secret that they want Virginia Tech and NC State. They get those 2 and, they close shop. Now would they add a East Carolina or Marshall? Probably not because in those examples, they do dilute their quality on-field product.
We need to focus on becoming Big 12 members because we are spinning our wheels hoping for a SEC invite. Besides, we know the coots would block us. By the way, the BC example is a poor one since they are a city school in the northeast that only cares about pro sports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [1051]
TigerPulse: 31%
25
|
Re: Conferences expand at most to 16. Anytime conferences
Dec 6, 2012, 10:26 AM
|
|
ridge creek is 100% correct. no one is saying the rivalries wont be there or watched, but on what channel? why would the sec add clemson when they already have sc market? they also have to protect the recruiting areas for its current teams. kids want to play in the best conference and it has an effect. we all as clemson fans wish and want to be in the sec, but it is not going to happen. there will be 4 super conferenses with 16 members each and there will be no acc as we now know it because it will merge with whats left of big east and be relegated to an ivey league type basketball league. if you are not with the big boys you are left out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18213]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 22450
Joined: 1999
|
The fact is, however, that the B12 and $EC have formed an
Dec 6, 2012, 10:39 AM
[ in reply to Conferences expand at most to 16. Anytime conferences ] |
|
alliance. There are surely ongoing discussions about the future of each. I could easily see an agreement between the two in which the $EC solidifies its borders and allows the B12 to claim NC and VA. This would be possible because the $EC already has a stronghold in TX and Mizzou is able to deliver all of the viewers in its state. There is not a NC school nor a VA school that can deliver the whole state like Mizzou can.
Message was edited by: David78®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Re: The fact is, however, that the B12 and $EC have formed an
Dec 6, 2012, 10:45 AM
|
|
I suspect that the smoke coming out of VT and NCS are signals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
23
|
Re: The fact is, however, that the B12 and $EC have formed an
Dec 6, 2012, 10:48 AM
[ in reply to The fact is, however, that the B12 and $EC have formed an ] |
|
David -
I agree the SEC and Big 12 have a working relationship, primarily due to the new Champions Bowl being created. So the SEC wants to see a strong Big 12 with good teams. However, I think the SEC will not pass up the opportunity to add NC and VA schools only to add schools in existing footprint. This doesn't make sense as the existing members will take a pay cut.
Instead, I see the SEC promoting a Big 12 move into FL, GA and SC. The SEC will not "lose" viewers to the Big 12 and the Big 12 would be strengthened by getting viewers and teams in this area. Meanwhile, the SEC grows even richer by getting into NC and VA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18213]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 22450
Joined: 1999
|
Re: The fact is, however, that the B12 and $EC have formed an
Dec 6, 2012, 11:10 AM
|
|
Fair enough. I can envision either scenario. Only time will tell. One thing I would be willing to bet on is that CU and FSU will both exit the ACC sooner or later and end up in either the $EC or B12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
20
|
Re: The fact is, however, that the B12 and $EC have formed an
Dec 6, 2012, 11:15 AM
|
|
I think you guys will end up in the Big 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2295]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Valid points. Thinking this through more carefully...
Dec 6, 2012, 10:05 AM
|
|
... in order for the additions of Clemson and FSU to make TV revenue break even, the current SEC contract would have to be increased by 14.3% (16 divided by 14). I'm biased, obviously, but that seems reasonable and justifiable to me.
Other hand, if Slive thinks adding schools outside the current footprint would allow him to renegotiate the contract up by much more than that, he'd have a fiduciary duty to do so -- balanced, as someone noted, against the "watering down" effect.
So many factors to consider. So much purposeful incorrect information. So much posturing. But so much fun!
Bottom line: ACC is junk bond status, and continued membership hinders Clemson's athletic and academic progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Valid points. Thinking this through more carefully...
Dec 6, 2012, 10:14 AM
|
|
I think you've successfully pinpointed what I'm arguing is a flawed strategy. Basing conference expansion on the current market is only going to fuel the bubble and eventually lead to its collapse. In other words, allowing the network money to drive the ship is an extremely short sighted approach.
What do you think the broadcast TV landscape will look like in 5 years, 10...even 20? I would argue that as technology advances- we're in store for dramatic changes. So allowing the current landscape to shift your focus from great football in a region of the country that is crazy about it, to the whims of networks that may not even exist in 5 or 10 years is a failure of vision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
The bills have to be paid somehow. I don't want to dig deep
Dec 6, 2012, 10:19 AM
|
|
into my pockets in order to make and keep Dabo and The Chad, millionaires. I'd rather TV pay than see ticket pices go through the roof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: The bills have to be paid somehow. I don't want to dig deep
Dec 6, 2012, 10:22 AM
|
|
right.
and i'm simply saying that adding clemson to the SEC is a better long term investment than VT or NCSU.
and
if you have the best league, the money will never be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Re: The bills have to be paid somehow. I don't want to dig deep
Dec 6, 2012, 10:28 AM
|
|
But again the networks are balking at paying much more. So the only avenue for the conferences to make a lot of money is by adding geography for a conference network. I read somewhere that the SEC is looking at making one billion dollars annually with the establishment of a conference network. And besides VT and NC State are not bad football programs. Their fanbase is good too.If we were talking about a East Carolina or Marshall, that's different.
I'd love to be in the SEC, too. But the Big 12 is not bad. Let's get a seat on the Big 12 train before it leaves the station.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: The bills have to be paid somehow. I don't want to dig deep
Dec 6, 2012, 10:38 AM
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with your points- I'm just disagreeing with the idea that the long term future of any conference is best left in the hands of the current TV networks.
the universities have lost focus and are buying into (pun intended) the idea that the highest payouts today are what's best for the league. I'm arguing that they should be focused on creating the best possible product and those high payouts will be a natural byproduct of being the best.
Our TV viewing experience will be dramatically different in 2023 or 2033, and letting today's networks potentially dictate the membership of conferences is foolish and will only result in a collapse and reformation.
I'm not saying NCSU and VT are weak, I'm just saying we are a better fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Conferences are made up of people. And people always
Dec 6, 2012, 10:41 AM
|
|
take a sure thing than gamble on what might be in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Conferences are made up of people. And people always
Dec 6, 2012, 10:47 AM
|
|
I would say that based on the entirety of human history, the advancement of technology doesn't even qualify as a bet...its a certainty. We will not be watching TV in the same way by 2023, advertisers won't be advertising in the same way, retailers won't be moving products in the same way, and the college football playoff won't be structured in the same way. mark it down.
yet we are allowing the way all of those things are done NOW, to dictate what will happen going forward- and that is foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6245]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
The Postal Service certainly agrees with you!
Dec 6, 2012, 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Re: Conferences are made up of people. And people always
Dec 6, 2012, 10:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: Conferences are made up of people. And people always ] |
|
Foolish or not, the Big 10 would not be expanding its network, much less maintaining it, if it wasn't a financial bonanza and if, based on their homework, it would not continue to be so as far as the eye can see into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
23
|
Ridgecreek -
Dec 6, 2012, 10:31 AM
[ in reply to The bills have to be paid somehow. I don't want to dig deep ] |
|
I was thinking about coaches salaries the other day.
Some writers have postulated that when the SEC Network gets rolling, its members could see payouts double and almost triple. The Big 10 is already speculated to pay Maryland $40 million and the SEC deal should be the most lucrative once it is done in a few years.
So, as I said, I was thinking about this massive increase in payout to these schools and wondered where all this money will go. If the SEC is currently paying out about $25 million or so and it soon goes to $50-$60 million, I think we will see coaches salaries skyrocket.
Nick Saban makes about $4.5 million a year I think. In watching these latest coaching searches, it appears there is a limited pool of "proven" talent for head coaches. That means the SEC will outbid everyone for the best coaches. Saban could literally be making $10-$12 million a year in a few years. The highest paid NFL coach only makes $9 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Our priorities are screwed up. Football coaches should not
Dec 6, 2012, 10:37 AM
|
|
be getting paid that kind of money. When I say "our", I mean the fans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
23
|
Re: Our priorities are screwed up. Football coaches should not
Dec 6, 2012, 10:43 AM
|
|
I believe it's simple capitalism. Those kind of coaches' salaries will be possible in that kind of market.
Athletic departments are not "for profit" entities so if they are not spending all their money on improving their product then they are not managing their program very well. With all that extra cash, the money will be spent on something and it is logical to assume that bidding wars for the best coaches will drive salaries up accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
23
|
Re: Valid points. Thinking this through more carefully...
Dec 6, 2012, 10:23 AM
[ in reply to Valid points. Thinking this through more carefully... ] |
|
Centennial -
I always like it when someone puts some thought into actual numbers so I appreciate your post. Ridge Creek has quantified it pretty well though. It doesn't seem to make economic sense for the SEC to invite schools in SC and FL.
The last I read was the SEC was having trouble with ESPN and CBS increasing the TV contract payout after adding A&M and Mizzou. I think the networks agreed to pay enough of an increase so the new additions would receive an equal share but the existing members did not get an increase in pay. I think we are reaching maximum contract payouts from the networks, so the increase in revenue for the conferences will not come from the network contracts but from the conference networks being sold on cable boxes.
The OP's entire argument crumbles when one simply looks at the Big 10 inviting Maryland to join. Maryland brings nothing athletically, so obviously athletic status is no longer the driving force in who gets invites. Maryland does bring the D.C. metropolitan tv market though and all those cable boxes.
If it were the case that a game matchup of national interest would increase the TV networks substantially, then adding strong football programs makes sense. But that doesn't seem to be where the most money can be made for a conference.
When someone can figure out how Clemson and FSU increase the potential payout to existing members more than the additions of say, UNC and UVA or VT, then there will be a legitimate argument for Clemson to the SEC. Until then, I think the future of the SEC is to wait out the demise of the ACC and then ###### a team from NC and VA - two very populated states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10613]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
It's all about adding TV sets, which we don't do
Dec 6, 2012, 10:26 AM
|
|
Probably not going to happen. We need to drop all of this salivation over the SEC anyway...just makes us look jealous over the coots
Message was edited by: CTiger423®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: It's all about adding TV sets, which we don't do
Dec 6, 2012, 10:30 AM
|
|
once again- I'm arguing that "adding TV sets" is a flawed strategy. Even now, I can watch games on my phone... The TV landscape is changing and using today's criteria to determine the future product is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10613]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
"Media markets" then, same thing***
Dec 6, 2012, 10:32 AM
|
|
nm
Message was edited by: CTiger423®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Re: It's all about adding TV sets, which we don't do
Dec 6, 2012, 10:35 AM
[ in reply to Re: It's all about adding TV sets, which we don't do ] |
|
As long as the conferences can make big money through cable and/or satellite fees, they will go the conference network route and add gepgrapghy. CBS, ESPN are not willing to pay up. You can't expect LSU, Georgia, Florida, etc to take paycuts. I know good and well that no one posting on this site would take a paycut at work just to bring in a good ole boy buddy. The conferences and schools are no different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6245]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
I heard a guy give his take on what you are
Dec 6, 2012, 10:55 AM
[ in reply to Re: It's all about adding TV sets, which we don't do ] |
|
saying one time that sounds right. TV sports are going to be aired a lot like ESPN 3 does right now. Soon...THAT will be the norm. Lets just pray that Warrick Dunn stays away as an announcer and keeps Ed Cunningham with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: It's all about adding TV sets, which we don't do
Dec 6, 2012, 10:55 AM
[ in reply to It's all about adding TV sets, which we don't do ] |
|
Just to clarify, I'm arguing that TV viewers want to watch the best game available not the closest game to their home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [757]
TigerPulse: 72%
22
|
Another financial bubble?
Dec 6, 2012, 10:27 AM
|
|
-tech bubble
-housing bubble
-college football and tv bubble next?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Need to put the conferences on the stock exchange.***
Dec 6, 2012, 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [841]
TigerPulse: 92%
23
|
Re: SEC logic? (long)
Dec 6, 2012, 10:31 AM
|
|
I agree adding Clemson and FSU would ehance the SEC product. However is NASCAR generating more revenue now or 20 years ago? Thats the bootom line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2642]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Point for using 'stadia'***
Dec 6, 2012, 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [16]
TigerPulse: 93%
2
|
Re: Well, depending on who you believe
Dec 6, 2012, 10:41 AM
|
|
Actually, based on information from an SEC school, TDP has met with a number of SEC ADs last year. The meeting was in Asheville. Clemson didn't show interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2013]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
This is a subject I actually want the LSU fans' opinions on***
Dec 6, 2012, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [810]
TigerPulse: 57%
23
|
Re: This is a subject I actually want the LSU fans' opinions on***
Dec 6, 2012, 11:06 AM
|
|
You better catch them before 11 AM and the first beer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14066]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23297
Joined: 2004
|
I was talking to my friend about exactly this last week.
Dec 6, 2012, 11:42 AM
|
|
It is my opinion that the absolute most important thing to the success of a conference financially is to be successful ON THE FIELD. TV markets are great, but if the conference stinks, nobody will care.
Look no further than the SEC vs ACC/BE. The SEC is located primarily in smaller states and rural areas. Sure they have Atlanta and New Orleans, but that's nothing compared to the ACC or Big East which have presences in the most populated part of the entire US, the eastern seaboard.
Yet look who gets the huge TV deals and has the passionate fanbases. Not the leagues with schools in metro areas with large potential tv audiences. Nope, it's the conference that puts the best product on the field, and that has the biggest and most passionate fan followings.
Now, to really cash in, you need some balance b/t the on-field product and tv markets that you reach. The ACC really needs, more than anything, more success on the field. That's pretty obvious. We can already reach enough TV sets, but we need a product that those people actually care enough about to watch.
The SEC, since it is already so successful on the field, can afford to water down the conference a little bit with a few average schools so long as they bring a lot of viewers. However, they can only take this so far before they dilute their product. How far is too far?
Sometimes though, you get to have your cake and eat it too. If the SEC manages to land VT they not only break into a big TV market, but they also get a pretty solid football program with a good fan following that isn't likely to drag the conference down.
So, while i agree that Clemson is a good fit for the SEC, the question is, do they really need us? Maybe it's worth more for them to just go grab another TV market since they already have a plethora of great football schools. Maybe they manage to get both at once like they seemingly did with A&M. Or maybe they decide that it's best to stick with their roots and look towards a Clemson.
To be perfectly honest, it seems like a long shot, especially given the fact that SC will probably go to any length just to keep us out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
20
|
Re: I was talking to my friend about exactly this last week.
Dec 6, 2012, 12:19 PM
|
|
The SEC ob viously added 2 huge markets in TAM and Mizzou. Obviously Texas A&M did well on the field this year. Although Missouri did not, thbey are capable, based on recent history. From 2007 through 2010, they won 39 games.
If the SEC adds Virginia Tech and NC State, they will be adding 2 solid southern football programs with fairly large fanbases and two new lucrative TV markets. WHEN, not if, that happens, the divisons will be:
East: South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech and NC State.
West: Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Arkansas, Auburn, Mississippi State, Texas A&M and Missouri.
The SEC would be set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 45
| visibility 472
|
|
|
50
