BCS leagues expanding - yeah?

ESPN is reporting that Florida State, North Carolina, NC State and Clemson all oppose the ACC adding Cal and Stanford, which seems to leave only the Mountain West as an option.

 

I think when you think of sports you can categorize sports as attracting attention on a national or a local level.

For example, on a local level MLB teams crush NBA teams in virtually every market in terms of fan interest and television viewership. The MLB teams tend to market effectively in their regions through their broadcasting networks. But at a national level the NBA games get higher ratings. The NBA markets its stars nationally. LeBron James is a huge figure nationally. Shohei Ohtani is virtually unknown in comparison.

And then there are sports with regional interest. These sports tend to be in the south. The southern states did not urbanize as quickly and the four major professional leagues arrived relatively late. So sports fan developed interests in SEC football, ACC basketball and NASCAR.

 

Dwight Garner was down

 

My son attended Berkeley and during his time there between 2016 and 2021 went to one and a half football games and no other sporting event, even with a high school friend on the women’s volleyball team.

He grew up attending games in SoCal with the old man but didn’t have any interest in Cal sports. I unfortunately never made it up for a game.

I went to a then D2 school and his mom attended an NAIA, so we were excited for him to have the opportunity at a school with big time sports, but he, and apparently most of his classmates, didn’t care.

 

Florida State and Clemson will be gone by 2026, so they think, so their votes are essentially meaningless.

 

They don't need the money. I'd like to think they also believe adding teams 3,000 miles away and spending $70,000 or more so your baseball, basketball, soccer and volleyball teams to play two games/matches is complete lunacy.

 

I've posted this before, and even though it would be a tougher row to hoe, I'd rather Clemson be in the SEC than Missouri, Texas A&M, Texas or Oklahoma.
Even if it's an L, it would be a game to get fired up about.

 

I've enjoyed Texas A&M being in the SEC. They've been a good fit competitively, geographically and culturally. Their teams aren't terrible and they have this funny "crazy little cousin" thing going on. They've brought something to the table.
Guess we'll see if Texas and Oklahoma bring some of the same vibe. Could've done without them ever joining, but Texas at least will bring plenty of hate with them.
Missouri is a complete donut hole. They've been in the SEC for 10 years and it still feels weird when I see them on the schedule as a conference game.

 

They won’t be gone, and their views will change if a TV partner can juice the money.

 

That's the problem with much of the Southeast. I don't see anything about Texas being geographically or culturally connected. In Mississippi, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
It's farther from Knoxville to Austin than it is Knoxville to Boston.

 

From five years ago:

The rise and fall of the WAC: Lessons we learned from the 16-team conference experiment

 

I think that part of Texas — East Texas, Southeast Texas — is both. Dallas and Austin, maybe not so much.
I guess it depends on what your definition or idea of the Southeast is. In my mind, it sprawls a bit and Texas A&M has been an extension of it.