CSNbbs

Full Version: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(09-30-2013 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The clock is ticking. Dodds showed us, once again, that lying to the public is no big deal for these folks. Mere weeks after saying he wasn't going to retire....he announces he is going to be retiring during that "Magical" month of August next year. Funny how so much is lining up to happen just before the start of the football season next year.

Yep, and all the details behind the scenes will have been worked out by April of next year whether they are announced that soon or not.

As we have already been told, committee's have been meeting since August 8th in order to work out details by January. I think we will know much sooner than April of next year.
I hope so He1nous, it's just that April starts the filing for change deadlines. And from that point on there are different deadlines leading up until August 15th. IMO April is the latest that we will know something definitive for that reason.

Yeah, we may not get definitive until April. This is going to be so freakin big though that I don't see how they will be able to contain it. The NCAA Conference isn't exactly closed doors.
(09-30-2013 10:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The clock is ticking. Dodds showed us, once again, that lying to the public is no big deal for these folks. Mere weeks after saying he wasn't going to retire....he announces he is going to be retiring during that "Magical" month of August next year. Funny how so much is lining up to happen just before the start of the football season next year.

Yep, and all the details behind the scenes will have been worked out by April of next year whether they are announced that soon or not.

As we have already been told, committee's have been meeting since August 8th in order to work out details by January. I think we will know much sooner than April of next year.
I hope so He1nous, it's just that April starts the filing for change deadlines. And from that point on there are different deadlines leading up until August 15th. IMO April is the latest that we will know something definitive for that reason.

Yeah, we may not get definitive until April. This is going to be so freakin big though that I don't see how they will be able to contain it. The NCAA Conference isn't exactly closed doors.

Actually H1 if you look back at the progression of realignment schools that acted on their own shopping their wares so to speak (Missouri, Florida State, etc., all lived on the leaks of information. Those moves managed between the conference commissioners and the schools were sudden and surprising. Slive had A&M fall into his lap and that one while not covert was pretty much over and done in a few months which is fast. The Missouri move was much more drawn out and full of drama. What was an initial warmth toward Mizzou began too cool among the SEC fan base as they seemed to still be shopping themselves for a better offer. I think that is why so many SEC fans are still ambivalent about whether they stay or go. I'm all for them and think they are a great addition. But there are many who would say let em go and bring in the two Oklahoma's and West Virginia, but they aren't Mike Slive.

Delany did a much stealthier job of his addition of Rutgers and Maryland. But that was handled between a commissioner and college presidents who weren't interested in trying to fish a better offer.

When this happens it will have been brokered between all parties, with no shopping and no mixed signals and no ignorant well intentioned boosters talking to the press. FOX, ESPN, the Big 10, SEC, ACC, and to a lesser extent the PAC will all have been consulted with some kind of consensus met between those entities and the college presidents of the universities involved. That is why I totally believe all 10 Big 12 schools will be accounted for in the process. If everyone stands to gain and are promised to be excluded if they run their mouths they will stay quiet.

I imagine FOX will be rewarded with additional content for cooperating, Texas will be compensated for the LHN as I outlined in the other thread on the CN&CR board, perhaps ND's deal will be bought out from NBC, or NBC compensated with subcontracted games from the ACC, the SEC will get two satisfactory additions (maybe 4, maybe), the PAC will get central time zone slots as we've discussed, The Big 10 will get 2 satisfactory additions, and anyone who throws a wrench into everyone's profits will get punished in many various and costly ways. The incentive will be to get it done. All parties realize now the longer that this drags out the less interest the public will have in their product. The quicker they get it done the sooner the public grows accustomed and returns to their former viewing habits.

The first baseball strike pissed everyone off. The second strike killed attendance and viewership. I don't think the NCAA, the conferences, or the networks want that kind of response. Everyone says "how do you get these groups together it's impossible!" It's not and it's called self interest. That is what makes the business world go around but the academic types tend to misunderstand and deny the logic of such a system. People who are afraid of what the future may hold for their school just deny it. But my faith in expediency and profit tell me that when everyone is afraid that further wrangling will lead to viewer apathy and fan discontent they will cooperate so that all may profit.

In God we Trust, but on earth I trust nothing but mutual self interest.
(09-30-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]In God we Trust, but on earth I trust nothing but mutual self interest.

That was all very good but this last line of yours basically sums up the entire situation and also very quickly explains how I go about coming up with my own theories.

The biggest aspect of how this is all in the mutual self interests of all these parties is an aspect that we have yet to even see. That is why I can understand how most folks don't see what is going on yet.

January will explain quite a bit.
(09-30-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]When this happens it will have been brokered between all parties,
I tend to agree, but can they do that without an outside party (a jilted party) crying "collusion!"?
(10-01-2013 06:50 PM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]When this happens it will have been brokered between all parties,
I tend to agree, but can they do that without an outside party (a jilted party) crying "collusion!"?
As long as all of the present P5 are accounted for in the process I think it can be done. What we may see initially is an upper tier of 65 schools placed in 4 conferences each of which has been given permission to expand from the remaining G5 as they see fit in the future (maybe a couple of years). Then if the Big 10 wishes to develop Buffalo, or include Connecticut for hockey, or some other similar arrangement with other schools it will be solely their business to handle as they see fit without any interference from the ACC or SEC or PAC. Ditto for the other conferences. If the SEC decides to go for Southern Academics for inclusion in the SECU (our version of the CIC) maybe you will see some kind of deal for Rice or Tulane along with exposure in all sports except football or something like that.

It will be important to maintain the illusion of potential future additions even if none of them are acted upon. And as long as the current 65 have a home and inclusion equally with the other schools of their new conferences then I think the furor will be negated. Any who want a future shot at inclusion wouldn't dare make a fuss, and the others won't care.
(09-30-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 10:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2013 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, and all the details behind the scenes will have been worked out by April of next year whether they are announced that soon or not.

As we have already been told, committee's have been meeting since August 8th in order to work out details by January. I think we will know much sooner than April of next year.
I hope so He1nous, it's just that April starts the filing for change deadlines. And from that point on there are different deadlines leading up until August 15th. IMO April is the latest that we will know something definitive for that reason.

Yeah, we may not get definitive until April. This is going to be so freakin big though that I don't see how they will be able to contain it. The NCAA Conference isn't exactly closed doors.

Actually H1 if you look back at the progression of realignment schools that acted on their own shopping their wares so to speak (Missouri, Florida State, etc., all lived on the leaks of information. Those moves managed between the conference commissioners and the schools were sudden and surprising. Slive had A&M fall into his lap and that one while not covert was pretty much over and done in a few months which is fast. The Missouri move was much more drawn out and full of drama. What was an initial warmth toward Mizzou began too cool among the SEC fan base as they seemed to still be shopping themselves for a better offer. I think that is why so many SEC fans are still ambivalent about whether they stay or go. I'm all for them and think they are a great addition. But there are many who would say let em go and bring in the two Oklahoma's and West Virginia, but they aren't Mike Slive.

Delany did a much stealthier job of his addition of Rutgers and Maryland. But that was handled between a commissioner and college presidents who weren't interested in trying to fish a better offer.

When this happens it will have been brokered between all parties, with no shopping and no mixed signals and no ignorant well intentioned boosters talking to the press. FOX, ESPN, the Big 10, SEC, ACC, and to a lesser extent the PAC will all have been consulted with some kind of consensus met between those entities and the college presidents of the universities involved. That is why I totally believe all 10 Big 12 schools will be accounted for in the process. If everyone stands to gain and are promised to be excluded if they run their mouths they will stay quiet.

I imagine FOX will be rewarded with additional content for cooperating, Texas will be compensated for the LHN as I outlined in the other thread on the CN&CR board, perhaps ND's deal will be bought out from NBC, or NBC compensated with subcontracted games from the ACC, the SEC will get two satisfactory additions (maybe 4, maybe), the PAC will get central time zone slots as we've discussed, The Big 10 will get 2 satisfactory additions, and anyone who throws a wrench into everyone's profits will get punished in many various and costly ways. The incentive will be to get it done. All parties realize now the longer that this drags out the less interest the public will have in their product. The quicker they get it done the sooner the public grows accustomed and returns to their former viewing habits.

The first baseball strike pissed everyone off. The second strike killed attendance and viewership. I don't think the NCAA, the conferences, or the networks want that kind of response. Everyone says "how do you get these groups together it's impossible!" It's not and it's called self interest. That is what makes the business world go around but the academic types tend to misunderstand and deny the logic of such a system. People who are afraid of what the future may hold for their school just deny it. But my faith in expediency and profit tell me that when everyone is afraid that further wrangling will lead to viewer apathy and fan discontent they will cooperate so that all may profit.

In God we Trust, but on earth I trust nothing but mutual self interest.
Not so sure... I think the SEC really warmed up to us last year. Maybe at first there were some reservations regarding Missouri but I think things are looking good for us these days. Seems like all the Missouri/B1G talk is coming from the B1G fans who know Delaney messed up by not taking Mizzou and Kansas. Now they believe we will come running if called to fix their mess. hahaha... NOT...
With Texas wanting to stay at ten schools in the Big XII, this is starting to make sense now.
(10-01-2013 07:48 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]With Texas wanting to stay at ten schools in the Big XII, this is starting to make sense now.

JR and I don't always agree but the one thing we have agreed on for awhile is that the Big 12 staying at 10 is all the proof we need that they do not plan on sticking it out for the long haul.
(10-01-2013 09:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]JR and I don't always agree but the one thing we have agreed on for awhile is that the Big 12 staying at 10 is all the proof we need that they do not plan on sticking it out for the long haul.

We don't even know at this point if the game of college football is in it for the long haul. It might be flag football with teams named after corporate sponsors.
And it may turn out that by the end of the GoRs, the bigger conferences may find their larger size cumbersome. IMO the perfect size for a conference is 10 teams, when playing a 9 game schedule. If conferences start playing a 10 game schedule, 11 would be the perfect size...

We'll find out more about that during the next decade...
(10-03-2013 07:09 PM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-01-2013 09:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]JR and I don't always agree but the one thing we have agreed on for awhile is that the Big 12 staying at 10 is all the proof we need that they do not plan on sticking it out for the long haul.

We don't even know at this point if the game of college football is in it for the long haul. It might be flag football with teams named after corporate sponsors.

There may be much more truth in this statement than any of us want to admit. It's a shame we are turning so gutless politically at what may be the most violent age in world history and that political gutlessness is turning into nanny state protectionism which just further cripples natural defense instincts. Life is dangerous, comes without guarantees, and frequently is enjoyed most by those best equipped to manage its stressors independently. I don't see many of these types being raised these days.
(10-03-2013 07:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]We'll find out more about that during the next decade...

That's the avenue I was headed down. I was thinking, well yeah, I guess the Big 12 is toast... Then I thought if the Big 10 can be 11 for 18 years, there might not be anything wrong with 10.

What I really have no insight into though is if the Big 12 is at all a cohesive unit. If Texas is going to be Texas then I don't see a happy ending.
(10-03-2013 07:42 PM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2013 07:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]We'll find out more about that during the next decade...
That's the avenue I was headed down. I was thinking, well yeah, I guess the Big 12 is toast... Then I thought if the Big 10 can be 11 for 18 years, there might not be anything wrong with 10.

What I really have no insight into though is if the Big 12 is at all a cohesive unit. If Texas is going to be Texas then I don't see a happy ending.
It is now. It wasn't when Nebraska and A&M had little brother syndrome, and Colorado and Mizzou (and just about everyone else) had wandering eyes due to the instability in the conference. But now that things have stabilized, everyone seems very happy, as far as I can tell.
Have you read the OU and UT sites lately? All they do is complain about how the conference sucks and how they can't wait to get out.
(10-03-2013 09:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Have you read the OU and UT sites lately? All they do is complain about how the conference sucks and how they can't wait to get out.
T-shirt fans aren't University Presidents, 10th and those are the guys with the only say in the matter. If we took message board discussions as the ultimate authority on the matter, a lot of moves that have been made already wouldn't have been made...
UT, Texas, is always a bad move for a conference. Texas helps kill conferences, just ask the old SWC folks and the Big 8 folks if they have a favorable or non favorable opinion of Texas' effect on the conference.

You want somebody from the Big12? Baylor. A respectable academic squad that competes from time to time and has a decent following. TCU, see Baylor.

WVU'S probably isn't a great choice. It would be the worst school academically, which is saying something Mississippi, and add very little on the field as well as on TV.
(10-09-2013 11:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]UT, Texas, is always a bad move for a conference. Texas helps kill conferences, just ask the old SWC folks and the Big 8 folks if they have a favorable or non favorable opinion of Texas' effect on the conference.

You want somebody from the Big12? Baylor. A respectable academic squad that competes from time to time and has a decent following. TCU, see Baylor.

WVU'S probably isn't a great choice. It would be the worst school academically, which is saying something Mississippi, and add very little on the field as well as on TV.

My two ideal picks for the SEC to get to 16 would be Florida State and Clemson. But it's not happening and it's not due to just markets. The SEC like all major conferences wants to add AAU schools to enhance future cross participation in securing grant revenue from corporations and the federal government. For that reason our primary targets to get to 16 will be Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and possibly Kansas or Duke. In the right circumstances we might consider Georgia Tech again, ....might.

Oklahoma would be acceptable even though not in AAU. But I think an Oklahoma State / Oklahoma pair is not a possibility.

If we expand out of the Big 12, in spite of my past playful speculations, it is going to be Texas and Oklahoma, with a very doubtful Kansas as a dark horse. If we don't get any of those we will wait for another chance to go after a pair from the East.
(10-09-2013 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-09-2013 11:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]UT, Texas, is always a bad move for a conference. Texas helps kill conferences, just ask the old SWC folks and the Big 8 folks if they have a favorable or non favorable opinion of Texas' effect on the conference.

You want somebody from the Big12? Baylor. A respectable academic squad that competes from time to time and has a decent following. TCU, see Baylor.

WVU'S probably isn't a great choice. It would be the worst school academically, which is saying something Mississippi, and add very little on the field as well as on TV.

My two ideal picks for the SEC to get to 16 would be Florida State and Clemson. But it's not happening and it's not due to just markets. The SEC like all major conferences wants to add AAU schools to enhance future cross participation in securing grant revenue from corporations and the federal government. For that reason our primary targets to get to 16 will be Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and possibly Kansas or Duke. In the right circumstances we might consider Georgia Tech again, ....might.

Oklahoma would be acceptable even though not in AAU. But I think an Oklahoma State / Oklahoma pair is not a possibility.

If we expand out of the Big 12, in spite of my past playful speculations, it is going to be Texas and Oklahoma, with a very doubtful Kansas as a dark horse. If we don't get any of those we will wait for another chance to go after a pair from the East.

I'm with you on FSU/Clemson. Neither would make the jump and for their own reasons which I can respect.

Being totally honest I don't see the SEC snagging AAU schools. We'll have to wait and hope that anti-Southern sentiment lapses long enough for them to add LSU to the rolls, especially since they deserve it.

The AAU is a crusty old organization with little, in my opinion, relevance to improving education. All of us, all of our schools, just need to hunker down and commit to improving the role they play. In time, and with the shift of migration down to us, it's only a matter of time before our schools become equally as important and respected.

As for football, there isn't anybody out there right now that adds to the brand in my opinion. The key to our success has been our uniquely Southern identity and adding certain teams, like the Oklahomas, could potentially detract from that. I'm in favour of a slow and steady approach to it.

What we are doing is working, we are the premier football conference and our schools continue to climb the rankings and earn national and worldwide respect, so let's just make sure we have sustained performance and growth and not put greed or excitement in the driver seat.
(10-09-2013 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-09-2013 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-09-2013 11:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]UT, Texas, is always a bad move for a conference. Texas helps kill conferences, just ask the old SWC folks and the Big 8 folks if they have a favorable or non favorable opinion of Texas' effect on the conference.

You want somebody from the Big12? Baylor. A respectable academic squad that competes from time to time and has a decent following. TCU, see Baylor.

WVU'S probably isn't a great choice. It would be the worst school academically, which is saying something Mississippi, and add very little on the field as well as on TV.

My two ideal picks for the SEC to get to 16 would be Florida State and Clemson. But it's not happening and it's not due to just markets. The SEC like all major conferences wants to add AAU schools to enhance future cross participation in securing grant revenue from corporations and the federal government. For that reason our primary targets to get to 16 will be Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and possibly Kansas or Duke. In the right circumstances we might consider Georgia Tech again, ....might.

Oklahoma would be acceptable even though not in AAU. But I think an Oklahoma State / Oklahoma pair is not a possibility.

If we expand out of the Big 12, in spite of my past playful speculations, it is going to be Texas and Oklahoma, with a very doubtful Kansas as a dark horse. If we don't get any of those we will wait for another chance to go after a pair from the East.

I'm with you on FSU/Clemson. Neither would make the jump and for their own reasons which I can respect.

Being totally honest I don't see the SEC snagging AAU schools. We'll have to wait and hope that anti-Southern sentiment lapses long enough for them to add LSU to the rolls, especially since they deserve it.

The AAU is a crusty old organization with little, in my opinion, relevance to improving education. All of us, all of our schools, just need to hunker down and commit to improving the role they play. In time, and with the shift of migration down to us, it's only a matter of time before our schools become equally as important and respected.

As for football, there isn't anybody out there right now that adds to the brand in my opinion. The key to our success has been our uniquely Southern identity and adding certain teams, like the Oklahomas, could potentially detract from that. I'm in favour of a slow and steady approach to it.

What we are doing is working, we are the premier football conference and our schools continue to climb the rankings and earn national and worldwide respect, so let's just make sure we have sustained performance and growth and not put greed or excitement in the driver seat.

While I totally agree with your sentiment, if we had wanted F.S.U. and Clemson we could have gotten them a year and a half ago. I was already gray when the expansion happened in 1992 and at that time I actually knew the commissioner. I'm not saying I traveled in the same social circles that he did, or was his friend, but I am saying we had family connections (not relations). Our goal in 1992 was to land Texas and Texas A&M along with Florida State and Clemson. As Jackie Sheryl pointed out we even talked about moving to 20 way back then by adding Miami and Georgia Tech back to that line up. It was an ambitious concept to tackle, especially before the SEC was as attractive a commodity as it is today.

While things have changed since 1992 with the network and market concepts entering into realignment strategies, the things that changed most were related to existing markets not needing duplication. That is why of the original targets only Texas and Texas A&M remained. And, it is why when Clemson and F.S.U. were the most willing we weren't. We were set to add A&M and Oklahoma two years ago when the Longhorns got their LHN and suddenly were no longer interested in the PAC. Oklahoma backed out to stay with Texas and restructure the Big 12. Missouri entered the picture. New market, AAU, flagship school, those were all the qualities that cemented Missouri as acceptable. Some might say that now that we have A&M we don't need Texas. I don't think we need them, but if they wanted to join I don't think we would turn down the #1 money maker in college football.

When Kramer was not able to land his four top targets in 1992 he picked up South Carolina which is now completing its transition into a strong regional brand, and we picked up Arkansas to have a gateway to Dallas and the Texas market. A&M solidified that objective nicely. Missouri was a strong business pick up that enhanced the SEC's academic status even though many of our non AAU schools are ranked higher in some scholastic service rankings.

Think about what our moves on the map have done. Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M all expanded our Western boundary. If North Carolina and Virginia are unapproachable in the foreseeable future then how do we complete our expansion model successfully and with the greatest satisfaction for our existing members?

I submit that what we have intentionally done is pursue the additions to the East while simultaneously and intentionally optimizing our opportunities to acquire the best possible additions to the West. Where else could Oklahoma and Texas move and have a ready made division of their former rivals, enhance an already wealthy conference with their presence, find easy travel for their alumni, and find a better social culture fit (not necessarily an academic one) than to become members of a Western division of the SEC comprised of Arkansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M?

Making such a move then solves problems for Eastern rivals. Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt then comprise the East and all traditional rivalries are preserved. Both divisions have better balance. There are 3 strong brands in each, two brands that regularly challenge, 1 brand that occasionally challenges, and two regularly weaker teams.

What the SEC is trying to accomplish in expansion is really just two strong programs away from reality. Academic adds, AAU enhancements for the SECU, geographical balance, and content for the networks. Obviously basketball additions would help us more because our football profile is solidly #1. But, foregoing additions in North Carolina or Virginia the ease of scheduling and most of our lofty goals could be obtained by what I've laid out.

I agree with you about branding issues. I very much agree with your assessment of the AAU. Alabama and Georgia might be candidates for the AAU if the medical schools were still on campus. But systems in both states found a better way to concentrate their training for a much needed profession by funneling research dollars to U.A.B. and the Medical College of Georgia respectively. But even though what you say is true the federal research money and the ability to share projects between member schools means we have to respect the old guard clout of the AAU even if we know it for what it is. So don't discount the importance that Florida, who once flirted with leaving the SEC, and Vanderbilt place upon their membership in, and association with, the AAU and other schools in that organization. From that respect Missouri and A&M were good first steps to stabilizing our ability to satisfy and hold the two members that we already had. When we can add to the bottom line, enhance our academic standing, make our scheduling much more flexible, keep our traditional rivals safe, and satisfy some of our best schools, I just don't see why we shouldn't do it.
(10-09-2013 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-09-2013 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-09-2013 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-09-2013 11:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]UT, Texas, is always a bad move for a conference. Texas helps kill conferences, just ask the old SWC folks and the Big 8 folks if they have a favorable or non favorable opinion of Texas' effect on the conference.

You want somebody from the Big12? Baylor. A respectable academic squad that competes from time to time and has a decent following. TCU, see Baylor.

WVU'S probably isn't a great choice. It would be the worst school academically, which is saying something Mississippi, and add very little on the field as well as on TV.

My two ideal picks for the SEC to get to 16 would be Florida State and Clemson. But it's not happening and it's not due to just markets. The SEC like all major conferences wants to add AAU schools to enhance future cross participation in securing grant revenue from corporations and the federal government. For that reason our primary targets to get to 16 will be Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and possibly Kansas or Duke. In the right circumstances we might consider Georgia Tech again, ....might.

Oklahoma would be acceptable even though not in AAU. But I think an Oklahoma State / Oklahoma pair is not a possibility.

If we expand out of the Big 12, in spite of my past playful speculations, it is going to be Texas and Oklahoma, with a very doubtful Kansas as a dark horse. If we don't get any of those we will wait for another chance to go after a pair from the East.

I'm with you on FSU/Clemson. Neither would make the jump and for their own reasons which I can respect.

Being totally honest I don't see the SEC snagging AAU schools. We'll have to wait and hope that anti-Southern sentiment lapses long enough for them to add LSU to the rolls, especially since they deserve it.

The AAU is a crusty old organization with little, in my opinion, relevance to improving education. All of us, all of our schools, just need to hunker down and commit to improving the role they play. In time, and with the shift of migration down to us, it's only a matter of time before our schools become equally as important and respected.

As for football, there isn't anybody out there right now that adds to the brand in my opinion. The key to our success has been our uniquely Southern identity and adding certain teams, like the Oklahomas, could potentially detract from that. I'm in favour of a slow and steady approach to it.

What we are doing is working, we are the premier football conference and our schools continue to climb the rankings and earn national and worldwide respect, so let's just make sure we have sustained performance and growth and not put greed or excitement in the driver seat.

While I totally agree with your sentiment, if we had wanted F.S.U. and Clemson we could have gotten them a year and a half ago. I was already a gray when the expansion happened in 1992 and at that time I actually knew the commissioner, I'm not saying I traveled in the same circles or was his friend, but I am saying we had family connections (not relations). I goal in 1992 was to land Texas and Texas A&M along with Florida State and Clemson. As Jackie Sheryl pointed out we even talked about moving to 20 way back then by adding Miami and Georgia Tech back to that line up.

While things have changed with the network and market concepts entering into realignment strategies, the things that changed were related to existing markets not needing duplication. That why of the original targets only Texas and Texas A&M remained. We were set to add A&M and Oklahoma two years ago when the Longhorns got their LHN and suddenly were no longer interested in the PAC. Oklahoma backed out to stay with Texas and restructure the Big 12. Missouri entered the picture. New market, AAU, flagship were all the qualities that qualified Missouri. Some might say that now that we have A&M we don't need Texas. I don't think we need them, but if they wanted to join I don't think we would turn down the #1 money maker in college football.

When Kramer was not able to land his four top targets in 1992 he picked up South Carolina which is now completing its transition into a strong regional brand, and we picked up Arkansas to have a gateway to Dallas and the Texas market. A&M solidified that objective nicely. Missouri was a strong business pick up that enhanced the SEC's academic status even though many of our non AAU schools are ranked higher in some scholastic services rankings.

Think about what our moves on the map have done. Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M all expanded our Western boundary. If North Carolina and Virginia are unapproachable in the foreseeable future then how do we complete our expansion model successfully and with the greatest satisfaction to for our existing members?

I submit that what we have intentionally done is pursue the additions to the East while simultaneously and intentionally optimizing our opportunities to acquire the best possible additions to the West. Where else could Oklahoma and Texas move and have a ready made division of their former rivals, enhance an already wealthy conference with their presence, find easy travel for their alumni, and find a better social culture (not necessarily an academic one) than to become members of a Western division of the SEC comprised of Arkansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M.

Making such a move then solves problems for Eastern rivals. Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt then comprise the East and all traditional rivalries are preserved. Both divisions have better balance. There are 3 strong brands in each, two brands that regularly challenge, 1 brand that occasionally challenges, and two regularly weaker teams.

What the SEC is trying to accomplish in expansion is really just two strong programs away from reality. Academic adds, AAU enhancements for the SECU, geographical balance, and content for the networks. Obviously basketball additions would help us more because our football profile is solidly #1. But, foregoing additions in North Carolina or Virginia the ease of scheduling and most of our lofty goals could be obtained by what I've laid out.

I agree with you about branding issues. I very much agree with your assessment of the AAU. Alabama and Georgia might be candidates for the AAU if the medical schools were still on campus. But systems in both states found a better way to concentrate their training for a much needed profession by funneling research dollars to U.A.B. and the Medical College of Georgia respectively. But even though what you say is true the federal research money and the ability to share projects between member schools means we have to respect the old guard clout of the AAU even if we know it for what it is. So don't discount the importance that Florida, who once flirted with leaving the SEC, and Vanderbilt place upon their membership in, and association with, the AAU other schools in that organization. From that respect Missouri and A&M were good first steps to stabilizing our ability to satisfy and hold the two members that we already had. When we can add to the bottom line, enhance our academic standing, make our scheduling much more flexible, keep our traditional rivals safe, and satisfy some of our best schools, I just don't see why we shouldn't do it.

I agree with all of that man.

I'd just add that we've, more or less, reached the limit of our cultural footprint. I think that footprint is the key to our success, as I mentioned. If we are going to expand in the future we need to strike a healthy balance. I'd argue that our cultural footprint is something unique to the S.E.C.. That balance is one part athletic success, one part academic success, and one part culture.

Two fine additions could include VA Tech, which is perhaps only as culturally relevant as Mizzou, and North Carolina State, more so.

I also think we have to be realistic about who and what we are. We are, undoubtedly, the premier athletic conference in terms of the big Football but we are the fourth best academic unit. Our major problem is we don't offer much to schools like UNC, Miami, Duke, and the like. That said, we can in time. The dynamic of higher education is changing and the AAU, while relevant today, is losing much of its esteem in its own overly rigid and nonsensical rules. I don't think I can overemphasize the importance domestic migration will play in those shifts South. The days when one had to choose between sunshine, beautiful women, food, and Southern hospitality, and advanced medical, nuclear, and robotic research are coming to a close.

Overall, the future is very bright for our conference on just about every front. Maybe it's just my conservative nature but I'd like for it to remain true to its roots and what I see as the secret to our success and position we enjoy today.
Reference URL's