I don't understand Slive's hard-on for the Big 12. Its a 2 team league....I could care less. Much rather see a PAC, B1G or ACC partnership in basketball AND football. It feels like the SEC is unnecessarily propping up a weakened league.

(05-16-2013 11:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I don't understand Slive's hard-on for the Big 12. Its a 2 team league....I could care less. Much rather see a PAC, B1G or ACC partnership in basketball AND football. It feels like the SEC is unnecessarily propping up a weakened league.

I feel the same way. I imagine it has something to do with the LHN and the corporate Mouse.

(05-16-2013 11:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I don't understand Slive's hard-on for the Big 12. Its a 2 team league....I could care less. Much rather see a PAC, B1G or ACC partnership in basketball AND football. It feels like the SEC is unnecessarily propping up a weakened league.

I feel the same way. I imagine it has something to do with the LHN and the corporate Mouse.

It also makes no sense from a "brand exposure" perspective. Playing against the Big-12 only gets the SEC into 4 states (and unpopulated to boot) that we do not currently have teams represented. Delaney is looking at changing bowl games so that B1G teams can get coast-to-coast exposure. The SEC could benefit from playing games in the northeast and west coast.

(05-17-2013 10:18 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I don't understand Slive's hard-on for the Big 12. Its a 2 team league....I could care less. Much rather see a PAC, B1G or ACC partnership in basketball AND football. It feels like the SEC is unnecessarily propping up a weakened league.

I feel the same way. I imagine it has something to do with the LHN and the corporate Mouse.

It also makes no sense from a "brand exposure" perspective. Playing against the Big-12 only gets the SEC into 4 states (and unpopulated to boot) that we do not currently have teams represented. Delaney is looking at changing bowl games so that B1G teams can get coast-to-coast exposure. The SEC could benefit from playing games in the northeast and west coast.

Excellent points that I agree with. I can't understand why we didn't partner with the ACC. The travel is closer for fans with the time and money to do so, the rivalries are old as they are based in the Southern Conference days, and it opens up exposure in New England, something Slive expressed an interest in. In your first post in this line of discussion you said "prop up" and that is exactly what it feels like.

There are teams in the Big 12 that benefit the SEC to schedule. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. West Virginia makes sense for the Northern part of our conference, especially Tennessee and Kentucky. Beyond that you are dead on in your analysis. Perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State would be good for Missouri since Kansas won't schedule them now. But the prospects are very limited for being of value to us.

The only contingency that I can think of is that something else that is yet to surface regarding a new upper tier, a breakaway, or further movement may have required this kind of diplomacy and that is why we are mending fences after taking A&M and Missouri. I don't know if that speculation is true or not, but it's the best reason I can think of now.

(05-17-2013 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:18 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I don't understand Slive's hard-on for the Big 12. Its a 2 team league....I could care less. Much rather see a PAC, B1G or ACC partnership in basketball AND football. It feels like the SEC is unnecessarily propping up a weakened league.

I feel the same way. I imagine it has something to do with the LHN and the corporate Mouse.

It also makes no sense from a "brand exposure" perspective. Playing against the Big-12 only gets the SEC into 4 states (and unpopulated to boot) that we do not currently have teams represented. Delaney is looking at changing bowl games so that B1G teams can get coast-to-coast exposure. The SEC could benefit from playing games in the northeast and west coast.

Excellent points that I agree with. I can't understand why we didn't partner with the ACC. The travel is closer for fans with the time and money to do so, the rivalries are old as they are based in the Southern Conference days, and it opens up exposure in New England, something Slive expressed an interest in. In your first post in this line of discussion you said "prop up" and that is exactly what it feels like.

There are teams in the Big 12 that benefit the SEC to schedule. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. West Virginia makes sense for the Northern part of our conference, especially Tennessee and Kentucky. Beyond that you are dead on in your analysis. Perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State would be good for Missouri since Kansas won't schedule them now. But the prospects are very limited for being of value to us.

The only contingency that I can think of is that something else that is yet to surface regarding a new upper tier, a breakaway, or further movement may have required this kind of diplomacy and that is why we are mending fences after taking A&M and Missouri. I don't know if that speculation is true or not, but it's the best reason I can think of now.

I would like a Mizzou -K State or Iowa State game. It would make the Jayhawkers sick. Iowa State is a great school with a great fan base. Maybe it's because the SEC already has several annual rivalry games with the ACC right now. Small reason...I know.

(05-17-2013 11:23 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:18 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:28 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I don't understand Slive's hard-on for the Big 12. Its a 2 team league....I could care less. Much rather see a PAC, B1G or ACC partnership in basketball AND football. It feels like the SEC is unnecessarily propping up a weakened league.

I feel the same way. I imagine it has something to do with the LHN and the corporate Mouse.

It also makes no sense from a "brand exposure" perspective. Playing against the Big-12 only gets the SEC into 4 states (and unpopulated to boot) that we do not currently have teams represented. Delaney is looking at changing bowl games so that B1G teams can get coast-to-coast exposure. The SEC could benefit from playing games in the northeast and west coast.

Excellent points that I agree with. I can't understand why we didn't partner with the ACC. The travel is closer for fans with the time and money to do so, the rivalries are old as they are based in the Southern Conference days, and it opens up exposure in New England, something Slive expressed an interest in. In your first post in this line of discussion you said "prop up" and that is exactly what it feels like.

There are teams in the Big 12 that benefit the SEC to schedule. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. West Virginia makes sense for the Northern part of our conference, especially Tennessee and Kentucky. Beyond that you are dead on in your analysis. Perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State would be good for Missouri since Kansas won't schedule them now. But the prospects are very limited for being of value to us.

The only contingency that I can think of is that something else that is yet to surface regarding a new upper tier, a breakaway, or further movement may have required this kind of diplomacy and that is why we are mending fences after taking A&M and Missouri. I don't know if that speculation is true or not, but it's the best reason I can think of now.

Maybe it's because the SEC already has several annual rivalry games with the ACC right now. Small reason...I know.

True, plus they have the B1G/ACC Challenge. If the ACC was forced to choose between the SEC and the B1G in basketball, and can't blame that choice. However, there is certainly room in the schedule for multiple conference Challenges if/when everyone clears out some of the patsies early in the season.

(05-17-2013 11:25 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 11:23 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:18 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 11:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I feel the same way. I imagine it has something to do with the LHN and the corporate Mouse.

It also makes no sense from a "brand exposure" perspective. Playing against the Big-12 only gets the SEC into 4 states (and unpopulated to boot) that we do not currently have teams represented. Delaney is looking at changing bowl games so that B1G teams can get coast-to-coast exposure. The SEC could benefit from playing games in the northeast and west coast.

Excellent points that I agree with. I can't understand why we didn't partner with the ACC. The travel is closer for fans with the time and money to do so, the rivalries are old as they are based in the Southern Conference days, and it opens up exposure in New England, something Slive expressed an interest in. In your first post in this line of discussion you said "prop up" and that is exactly what it feels like.

There are teams in the Big 12 that benefit the SEC to schedule. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. West Virginia makes sense for the Northern part of our conference, especially Tennessee and Kentucky. Beyond that you are dead on in your analysis. Perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State would be good for Missouri since Kansas won't schedule them now. But the prospects are very limited for being of value to us.

The only contingency that I can think of is that something else that is yet to surface regarding a new upper tier, a breakaway, or further movement may have required this kind of diplomacy and that is why we are mending fences after taking A&M and Missouri. I don't know if that speculation is true or not, but it's the best reason I can think of now.

Maybe it's because the SEC already has several annual rivalry games with the ACC right now. Small reason...I know.

True, plus they have the B1G/ACC Challenge. If the ACC was forced to choose between the SEC and the B1G in basketball, and can't blame that choice. However, there is certainly room in the schedule for multiple conference Challenges if/when everyone clears out some of the patsies early in the season.

They have really gotten over the top with some of these early schedules. I see some of these games and I am like...."you are kidding...right?"

(05-17-2013 11:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 11:25 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 11:23 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:18 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  It also makes no sense from a "brand exposure" perspective. Playing against the Big-12 only gets the SEC into 4 states (and unpopulated to boot) that we do not currently have teams represented. Delaney is looking at changing bowl games so that B1G teams can get coast-to-coast exposure. The SEC could benefit from playing games in the northeast and west coast.

Excellent points that I agree with. I can't understand why we didn't partner with the ACC. The travel is closer for fans with the time and money to do so, the rivalries are old as they are based in the Southern Conference days, and it opens up exposure in New England, something Slive expressed an interest in. In your first post in this line of discussion you said "prop up" and that is exactly what it feels like.

There are teams in the Big 12 that benefit the SEC to schedule. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. West Virginia makes sense for the Northern part of our conference, especially Tennessee and Kentucky. Beyond that you are dead on in your analysis. Perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State would be good for Missouri since Kansas won't schedule them now. But the prospects are very limited for being of value to us.

The only contingency that I can think of is that something else that is yet to surface regarding a new upper tier, a breakaway, or further movement may have required this kind of diplomacy and that is why we are mending fences after taking A&M and Missouri. I don't know if that speculation is true or not, but it's the best reason I can think of now.

Maybe it's because the SEC already has several annual rivalry games with the ACC right now. Small reason...I know.

True, plus they have the B1G/ACC Challenge. If the ACC was forced to choose between the SEC and the B1G in basketball, and can't blame that choice. However, there is certainly room in the schedule for multiple conference Challenges if/when everyone clears out some of the patsies early in the season.

They have really gotten over the top with some of these early schedules. I see some of these games and I am like...."you are kidding...right?"

UK is as bad about it as anybody, but Cal at least tries to schedule lower tier teams that were tops in their conference and play a unique offense or defense. During the championship year, we plays lower tier teams that ran a Princeton Offense, 1-3-1, 2-3, or full court man. That helped at tournament time since they had played against it already. With a bunch of one and dones, that is pretty valuable.

(05-17-2013 11:42 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 11:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 11:25 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 11:23 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Excellent points that I agree with. I can't understand why we didn't partner with the ACC. The travel is closer for fans with the time and money to do so, the rivalries are old as they are based in the Southern Conference days, and it opens up exposure in New England, something Slive expressed an interest in. In your first post in this line of discussion you said "prop up" and that is exactly what it feels like.

There are teams in the Big 12 that benefit the SEC to schedule. Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. West Virginia makes sense for the Northern part of our conference, especially Tennessee and Kentucky. Beyond that you are dead on in your analysis. Perhaps Iowa State and Kansas State would be good for Missouri since Kansas won't schedule them now. But the prospects are very limited for being of value to us.

The only contingency that I can think of is that something else that is yet to surface regarding a new upper tier, a breakaway, or further movement may have required this kind of diplomacy and that is why we are mending fences after taking A&M and Missouri. I don't know if that speculation is true or not, but it's the best reason I can think of now.

Maybe it's because the SEC already has several annual rivalry games with the ACC right now. Small reason...I know.

True, plus they have the B1G/ACC Challenge. If the ACC was forced to choose between the SEC and the B1G in basketball, and can't blame that choice. However, there is certainly room in the schedule for multiple conference Challenges if/when everyone clears out some of the patsies early in the season.

They have really gotten over the top with some of these early schedules. I see some of these games and I am like...."you are kidding...right?"

UK is as bad about it as anybody, but Cal at least tries to schedule lower tier teams that were tops in their conference and play a unique offense or defense. During the championship year, we plays lower tier teams that ran a Princeton Offense, 1-3-1, 2-3, or full court man. That helped at tournament time since they had played against it already. With a bunch of one and dones, that is pretty valuable.

Yep, and the big ticket gates help fund the smaller programs.