Gordon Gee comments on the big meeting coming on October 17th.
Quick question for the gallery...
Gee is the former President of Vanderbilt. Do you think that association might curry some favor with current SEC Presidents when it comes to the question of does WVU get in?
I'm not saying that would make the decision. Just wondering if that gives him a puncher's chance to make it happen in the event the option is on the table.
(10-12-2016 11:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Gordon Gee comments on the big meeting coming on October 17th.
Quick question for the gallery...
Gee is the former President of Vanderbilt. Do you think that association might curry some favor with current SEC Presidents when it comes to the question of does WVU get in?
I'm not saying that would make the decision. Just wondering if that gives him a puncher's chance to make it happen in the event the option is on the table.
He's an interesting guy, bow tie or not, but has always been something of a loose cannon. I'm not sure it would carry any weight at all. But he might have friends that would listen.
WVU has had its supporters in the SEC, but the problem is when WVU has a chance at membership, there have been more valuable options at that time. 4 years ago they were given an evaluation with a list of items to approve. I'm sure they are spending their time in the B12 upgrading their programs to compete in the B12 and the SEC.
I could see WVU getting in if we take 4.
Or maybe the ACC picks them up.
What IF we took Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, West Virginia, and UConn?
I know UConn is outside the norm here, but would ESPN use them to bolster our basketball league in a more significant way? The ACC has plenty of basketball content and a good foothold in the Northeast. They could probably make better use of Cincinnati. The B1G needs a school like Oklahoma, but I'm not sure UConn presents a compelling uptick in viewership in that market to justify the move for them. They already have Rutgers and Penn State which have significant alumni in the Northeast.
From our perspective, a presence in that region could pay dividends market wise. That and having a relative cupcake within conference should help keep the powers on top.
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
South: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia, UConn
It would be more ideal if we had a NC or VA school on the Eastern wing, but that's not going to happen obviously.
If ESPN has their hands in any of this, I have to believe they want to strengthen their properties to the fullest. So, the SEC were to add KU, OU, OSU and UT, the strengthening of SEC basketball is accomplished and the football product is not diluted. Really don't see the need to add a UConn. Even if the SEC added WVU, it has strengthened the basketball side of things while not diluting the football product. UConn, although a very good basketball program, does not have the weight nor tradition of KU. The football side is a wash between the two.
(10-12-2016 11:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Gordon Gee comments on the big meeting coming on October 17th.
Quick question for the gallery...
Gee is the former President of Vanderbilt. Do you think that association might curry some favor with current SEC Presidents when it comes to the question of does WVU get in?
I'm not saying that would make the decision. Just wondering if that gives him a puncher's chance to make it happen in the event the option is on the table.
I doubt it. His tenure at Vandy predates most of the current ADs and Presidents in the SEC.
He is 72 years old and has got to see his career winding to a close in the next few years anyway.
(10-13-2016 07:56 AM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]WVU has had its supporters in the SEC, but the problem is when WVU has a chance at membership, there have been more valuable options at that time. 4 years ago they were given an evaluation with a list of items to approve. I'm sure they are spending their time in the B12 upgrading their programs to compete in the B12 and the SEC.
I will say West Virginia would be an excellent fit if we add Oklahoma or someone similar.
(10-14-2016 11:19 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2016 07:56 AM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]WVU has had its supporters in the SEC, but the problem is when WVU has a chance at membership, there have been more valuable options at that time. 4 years ago they were given an evaluation with a list of items to approve. I'm sure they are spending their time in the B12 upgrading their programs to compete in the B12 and the SEC.
I will say West Virginia would be an excellent fit if we add Oklahoma or someone similar.
The biggest issue with WVU in '91 was distance. We took a peek at them when Virginia Tech expressed interest.
By 2010 academics were an issue for the conference as a whole. Markets were the main motivator. WVU failed on both accounts.
The SEC will be making north of 40 million this next go around. WVU's issue next time will be some of the above but mostly it will be that they don't earn us the 40 million plus we would need to pay them. WVU has now been priced out of SEC expansion.
Oklahoma, Texas, and to a lesser extent Kansas would be able to pay their way in, and Kansas is getting to be a close call at 40+ million. That's the biggest reason I don't think we would go past 16. If we had to take a 4th to land that lot Iowa State, West Virginia, and Oklahoma State would get the looks at that 4th slot. But, they would have to have the economic cover of UT & OU to get in.
Add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia
Split the conference into 6 scheduling divisions
#1 - Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas
#2 - A&M-Arkansas-Missouri
#3 - LSU-Ole Miss-MSU
#4 - Alabama-Auburn-Tennessee
#5 - Vandy-Georgia-Florida
#6 - WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky
9 game schedule: play both of the teams in your division, 2 in each neighboring division - with some annual locks, and then 1 from each of the 3 other divisions.
For instance, LSU would play Ole Miss and MSU; Alabama (lock) and Auburn or Tennessee; 2 out of A&M-Arkansas-Missouri; and then 1 of: Vandy-Georgia-Florida; WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky; and Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas.
Florida would play Georgia and Vanderbilt: Tennessee (lock) and Alabama or Auburn; 2 out of WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky; and 1 of: Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas; A&M-Arkansas-Missouri; LSU-Ole Miss-MUS.
Texas A&M would play Arkansas and Missouri; Texas (lock) and Oklahoma or Kansas; 2 out of LSU-Ole Miss-MSU; and 1 of: Alabama-Auburn-Tennessee; Vandy-Georgia-Florida; and WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky.
Auburn would play Alabama and Tennessee; Georgia (lock) and Vandy or Florida; 2 out of LSU-Ole Miss-MSU; and 1 of: WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky; Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas; and A&M-Arkansas-Missouri.
Oklahoma would play Texas and Kansas; 2 out of A&M-Arkansas-Missouri; 2 out of WVU-Kentucky-South Carolina; and 1 of: LSU-Ole Miss-MSU; Alabama-Auburn-Tennessee; and Vandy-Florida-Georgia.
So, you play mostly rivals annually, most nearby schools at least every other year, and the rest of the conference once in 3 years.
(10-14-2016 11:12 AM)Indytarheel Wrote: [ -> ]If ESPN has their hands in any of this, I have to believe they want to strengthen their properties to the fullest. So, the SEC were to add KU, OU, OSU and UT, the strengthening of SEC basketball is accomplished and the football product is not diluted. Really don't see the need to add a UConn. Even if the SEC added WVU, it has strengthened the basketball side of things while not diluting the football product. UConn, although a very good basketball program, does not have the weight nor tradition of KU. The football side is a wash between the two.
Diluting the football product, one would think, is not a great idea, but I have some concerns about adding nothing but strong football schools.
1. The league is already the deepest in that sport.
2. We're already the most competitive as far as expectations and salaries go.
3. There are numerous programs that are used to winning 9, 10, or 11 games a year and the more quality football schools we have the more difficult that will be.
I think you see a confluence of these issues when it comes to recent coaching changes. Mark Richt and Les Miles are both gone despite being two of the better coaches of this generation. Bret Bielema is a fine coach, but if he doesn't start putting up more wins soon then you can bet he's on the hot seat. People were talking about firing Kevin Sumlin before the season started.
Add to that, we've had several coaches hired in recent years who frankly didn't deserve the opportunity...whether we're talking about Gene Chizik, a 2nd chance for Will Muschamp, and we've covered the issues Butch Jones has had despite having a very talented roster. We've just lost coaches like Gary Pinkel and Steve Spurrier although in Spurrier's case it was time to go. There are also a few coaches whom the jury is still out on.
Point being, we've raised revenue and expectations by adding more great football schools, but I think the extraordinarily competitive nature of the league's fans and donors have put us in a precarious position. The one thing you can't do to good employees is fire them too early because it discourages future employees from trusting you. Fact is, there aren't very many Nick Sabans or Urban Meyers around. Most coaches aren't going to compete for a national championship in the best conference in the land on an annual basis. It's unrealistic.
We need to add some balance back to the league. Part of that is communicating a greater understanding to boosters and donors who pay the bills. The other aspect is keeping everyone happy by inflating the win totals a little. If we have to add schools like Kansas and UConn to do it then I don't think that's a bad thing.
Yeah, we need schools like Texas or Oklahoma as well to boost revenue and there aren't very many schools that can do it at this point, but I think we should tread lightly.
(10-14-2016 02:39 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]Add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia
Split the conference into 6 scheduling divisions
#1 - Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas
#2 - A&M-Arkansas-Missouri
#3 - LSU-Ole Miss-MSU
#4 - Alabama-Auburn-Tennessee
#5 - Vandy-Georgia-Florida
#6 - WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky
9 game schedule: play both of the teams in your division, 2 in each neighboring division - with some annual locks, and then 1 from each of the 3 other divisions.
For instance, LSU would play Ole Miss and MSU; Alabama (lock) and Auburn or Tennessee; 2 out of A&M-Arkansas-Missouri; and then 1 of: Vandy-Georgia-Florida; WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky; and Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas.
Florida would play Georgia and Vanderbilt: Tennessee (lock) and Alabama or Auburn; 2 out of WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky; and 1 of: Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas; A&M-Arkansas-Missouri; LSU-Ole Miss-MUS.
Texas A&M would play Arkansas and Missouri; Texas (lock) and Oklahoma or Kansas; 2 out of LSU-Ole Miss-MSU; and 1 of: Alabama-Auburn-Tennessee; Vandy-Georgia-Florida; and WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky.
Auburn would play Alabama and Tennessee; Georgia (lock) and Vandy or Florida; 2 out of LSU-Ole Miss-MSU; and 1 of: WVU-South Carolina-Kentucky; Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas; and A&M-Arkansas-Missouri.
Oklahoma would play Texas and Kansas; 2 out of A&M-Arkansas-Missouri; 2 out of WVU-Kentucky-South Carolina; and 1 of: LSU-Ole Miss-MSU; Alabama-Auburn-Tennessee; and Vandy-Florida-Georgia.
So, you play mostly rivals annually, most nearby schools at least every other year, and the rest of the conference once in 3 years.
That's a concept I can get behind
