So I didn't get any replies on my last thread. I'll try again. Hopefully it will lead to decent discussion.

After looking at those different categories of consideration for expansion, I started to wonder about "strategic expansion." All expansion is obviously strategic in some ways (new markets, new brands, etc) but I want to focus on strategic versus other conferences.

So: Scenario: Both GORs are over and it looks like both the Big 12 and ACC are in trouble. Which one or two schools should each conference pick that might hinder or stop other conferences plans (while also benefiting conference A - example: Big 10 may want into southern markets, but taking FIU doesn't help much)

(Subnote: No knock on FIU. After my academics analysis it surprised me to see FIU listed as a Carnegie "Highest Research" school.)

Example: If the Big 12 decided it wanted to destroy or hurt the AAC it could take two of UConn/Cincy or Houston. While the AAC could backfill, they wouldn't be seen as quite as powerful.

Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  So I didn't get any replies on my last thread. I'll try again. Hopefully it will lead to decent discussion.

After looking at those different categories of consideration for expansion, I started to wonder about "strategic expansion." All expansion is obviously strategic in some ways (new markets, new brands, etc) but I want to focus on strategic versus other conferences.

So: Scenario: Both GORs are over and it looks like both the Big 12 and ACC are in trouble. Which one or two schools should each conference pick that might hinder or stop other conferences plans (while also benefiting conference A - example: Big 10 may want into southern markets, but taking FIU doesn't help much)

(Subnote: No knock on FIU. After my academics analysis it surprised me to see FIU listed as a Carnegie "Highest Research" school.)

Example: If the Big 12 decided it wanted to destroy or hurt the AAC it could take two of UConn/Cincy or Houston. While the AAC could backfill, they wouldn't be seen as quite as powerful.

Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

I don't think you can think in terms of strategic moves to impinge your competition and limit it to just two. For instance to stop the Big 10 dead in its tracks on the East Coast the SEC would need to offer at least 4. Duke, U.N.C., UVa, & Va Tech. Without entry into those two states the Big 10 expansion down the Atlantic Coast is dead.

To stop their advance in the West it would take 4 as well. Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and whoever else is necessary to get it done. To me those are lock down moves on the corners.

Also if we had those what else would we need?

(06-08-2016 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  So I didn't get any replies on my last thread. I'll try again. Hopefully it will lead to decent discussion.

After looking at those different categories of consideration for expansion, I started to wonder about "strategic expansion." All expansion is obviously strategic in some ways (new markets, new brands, etc) but I want to focus on strategic versus other conferences.

So: Scenario: Both GORs are over and it looks like both the Big 12 and ACC are in trouble. Which one or two schools should each conference pick that might hinder or stop other conferences plans (while also benefiting conference A - example: Big 10 may want into southern markets, but taking FIU doesn't help much)

(Subnote: No knock on FIU. After my academics analysis it surprised me to see FIU listed as a Carnegie "Highest Research" school.)

Example: If the Big 12 decided it wanted to destroy or hurt the AAC it could take two of UConn/Cincy or Houston. While the AAC could backfill, they wouldn't be seen as quite as powerful.

Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

I don't think you can think in terms of strategic moves to impinge your competition and limit it to just two. For instance to stop the Big 10 dead in its tracks on the East Coast the SEC would need to offer at least 4. Duke, U.N.C., UVa, & Va Tech. Without entry into those two states the Big 10 expansion down the Atlantic Coast is dead.

To stop their advance in the West it would take 4 as well. Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and whoever else is necessary to get it done. To me those are lock down moves on the corners.

Also if we had those what else would we need?

I guess what I had in mind was not necessarily "lock down" moves but "hindrance" moves and "protection" moves. For example, taking one of FSU/Miami doesn't stop the Big 10 from taking the other, but protects the SECs Florida claim overall. (An aside: In the past you made the case for Miami over FSU, if I remember correctly. Not sure where you stand on that now but I think I'd take Miami just for academic reasons right now).

So my rationale: taking Oklahoma alone means Texas is no longer contiguous. Probably not an issue to the Big 10 to snatch up a school like Texas, but maybe it makes them pause. In addition, by taking OK, the Big 10 may not see Kansas in the same light, since it no longer gives them the bridge to Texas it would have. Not a lock down, but definitely a hindrance.

Duke: I use Duke because they do not come up on Big 10 wish-lists alone, but only as an add on with UNC. So by taking Duke, perhaps the Big 10 has to pause again. Do they let us move again and take UNC and their scandal while themselves double down on Virginia? Do they go after UVA and UNC anyway (probable)? Does UVA consider the SEC more now that the SEC has one of their rivals in Duke? It sets us up for a good situation for further expansion, and at the same time protects us from needing to "reach" for ECU-type schools (nothing against ECU, just not there yet). Since NC State is a clear third in the state in my mind (again, nothing against NC State, as I think the SEC would certainly be content with Virginia tech/NC State, but aiming higher isn't an awful way to go.

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

If you're going full Stratego, the you need to assess what the real threats are. IMO, I wouldn't view the B1G as a opponent but instead a partner to the SEC. Outside of tOSU, there really isn't a team from that conference I'd like to see in the SEC. The PAC of course is irrelevant due to distance.

Next I would remember the lessons that the ACC demonstrated; don't kill a conference, just leave it impotent. For the B12, taking OU starts the conference swaying like a jenga tower. The B1G could do the same with VT. The available backfills would only lead to further destabilization. Just think about what FSU's reaction would be if UConn was the Hokie's replacement.

While Mizzou and Vandy might marginally be vulnerable to the B1G's sweet nothings, I don't think it would be that crippling for the SEC. In that scenario I would backfill with ECU or other B12 schools. I know there was a time when the ACC pondered taking UGA and UF, but that window has closed IMO. GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

(06-09-2016 09:54 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  So I didn't get any replies on my last thread. I'll try again. Hopefully it will lead to decent discussion.

After looking at those different categories of consideration for expansion, I started to wonder about "strategic expansion." All expansion is obviously strategic in some ways (new markets, new brands, etc) but I want to focus on strategic versus other conferences.

So: Scenario: Both GORs are over and it looks like both the Big 12 and ACC are in trouble. Which one or two schools should each conference pick that might hinder or stop other conferences plans (while also benefiting conference A - example: Big 10 may want into southern markets, but taking FIU doesn't help much)

(Subnote: No knock on FIU. After my academics analysis it surprised me to see FIU listed as a Carnegie "Highest Research" school.)

Example: If the Big 12 decided it wanted to destroy or hurt the AAC it could take two of UConn/Cincy or Houston. While the AAC could backfill, they wouldn't be seen as quite as powerful.

Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

I don't think you can think in terms of strategic moves to impinge your competition and limit it to just two. For instance to stop the Big 10 dead in its tracks on the East Coast the SEC would need to offer at least 4. Duke, U.N.C., UVa, & Va Tech. Without entry into those two states the Big 10 expansion down the Atlantic Coast is dead.

To stop their advance in the West it would take 4 as well. Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and whoever else is necessary to get it done. To me those are lock down moves on the corners.

Also if we had those what else would we need?

I guess what I had in mind was not necessarily "lock down" moves but "hindrance" moves and "protection" moves. For example, taking one of FSU/Miami doesn't stop the Big 10 from taking the other, but protects the SECs Florida claim overall. (An aside: In the past you made the case for Miami over FSU, if I remember correctly. Not sure where you stand on that now but I think I'd take Miami just for academic reasons right now).

So my rationale: taking Oklahoma alone means Texas is no longer contiguous. Probably not an issue to the Big 10 to snatch up a school like Texas, but maybe it makes them pause. In addition, by taking OK, the Big 10 may not see Kansas in the same light, since it no longer gives them the bridge to Texas it would have. Not a lock down, but definitely a hindrance.

Duke: I use Duke because they do not come up on Big 10 wish-lists alone, but only as an add on with UNC. So by taking Duke, perhaps the Big 10 has to pause again. Do they let us move again and take UNC and their scandal while themselves double down on Virginia? Do they go after UVA and UNC anyway (probable)? Does UVA consider the SEC more now that the SEC has one of their rivals in Duke? It sets us up for a good situation for further expansion, and at the same time protects us from needing to "reach" for ECU-type schools (nothing against ECU, just not there yet). Since NC State is a clear third in the state in my mind (again, nothing against NC State, as I think the SEC would certainly be content with Virginia tech/NC State, but aiming higher isn't an awful way to go.

The case I made for Miami boiled down to these points:
1. The SEC needs a simple majority of viewers in Florida, not the plurality we now have.
2. The SEC needs a presence in South Florida. While a case could be made for UCF based on demographics, clearly Miami is the recognized brand.
3. Pertinent to this discussion the taking of Miami would not implode the ACC leaving it intact as a buffer.

BTW: I totally agree about OU. Having them not only impedes access to Texas from the Big 10, but it also becomes a lure.

I don't agree about Duke, but I understand your rationale. Taking UVa & UNC stops advancement there. I posted about taking 4 because it would probably take accommodating Duke and Virginia Tech to pull it off.

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

If you're going full Stratego, the you need to assess what the real threats are. IMO, I wouldn't view the B1G as a opponent but instead a partner to the SEC. Outside of tOSU, there really isn't a team from that conference I'd like to see in the SEC. The PAC of course is irrelevant due to distance.

Next I would remember the lessons that the ACC demonstrated; don't kill a conference, just leave it impotent. For the B12, taking OU starts the conference swaying like a jenga tower. The B1G could do the same with VT. The available backfills would only lead to further destabilization. Just think about what FSU's reaction would be if UConn was the Hokie's replacement.

While Mizzou and Vandy might marginally be vulnerable to the B1G's sweet nothings, I don't think it would be that crippling for the SEC. In that scenario I would backfill with ECU or other B12 schools. I know there was a time when the ACC pondered taking UGA and UF, but that window has closed IMO. GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

I could see Mizzou being conflicted. Vandy is not. They've had a standing offer from the Big 10 for quite some time and like Notre Dame it has been a big "Nyet!"

The SEC is the number one conference in every state they share with the ACC. That is why UNC is so firmly against any N.Carolina school in the SEC. N.C. State and Virginia Tech would have left the ACC footprint bereft of a state they controlled. Think about that.

To the West taking the Oklahoma's or even OU & KU wipes out connectivity to Texas.

(06-09-2016 01:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

If you're going full Stratego, the you need to assess what the real threats are. IMO, I wouldn't view the B1G as a opponent but instead a partner to the SEC. Outside of tOSU, there really isn't a team from that conference I'd like to see in the SEC. The PAC of course is irrelevant due to distance.

Next I would remember the lessons that the ACC demonstrated; don't kill a conference, just leave it impotent. For the B12, taking OU starts the conference swaying like a jenga tower. The B1G could do the same with VT. The available backfills would only lead to further destabilization. Just think about what FSU's reaction would be if UConn was the Hokie's replacement.

While Mizzou and Vandy might marginally be vulnerable to the B1G's sweet nothings, I don't think it would be that crippling for the SEC. In that scenario I would backfill with ECU or other B12 schools. I know there was a time when the ACC pondered taking UGA and UF, but that window has closed IMO. GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

I could see Mizzou being conflicted. Vandy is not. They've had a standing offer from the Big 10 for quite some time and like Notre Dame it has been a big "Nyet!"

The SEC is the number one conference in every state they share with the ACC. That is why UNC is so firmly against any N.Carolina school in the SEC. N.C. State and Virginia Tech would have left the ACC footprint bereft of a state they controlled. Think about that.

To the West taking the Oklahoma's or even OU & KU wipes out connectivity to Texas.

Not so in South Carolina and won't be so in Kentucky in another 10 years.
While Virginia Tech has shown no indication of ever wanting to leave the ACC, West Virginia could slip into the VT slot as an acceptable football replacement and an upgrade in basketball.

(06-09-2016 02:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

If you're going full Stratego, the you need to assess what the real threats are. IMO, I wouldn't view the B1G as a opponent but instead a partner to the SEC. Outside of tOSU, there really isn't a team from that conference I'd like to see in the SEC. The PAC of course is irrelevant due to distance.

Next I would remember the lessons that the ACC demonstrated; don't kill a conference, just leave it impotent. For the B12, taking OU starts the conference swaying like a jenga tower. The B1G could do the same with VT. The available backfills would only lead to further destabilization. Just think about what FSU's reaction would be if UConn was the Hokie's replacement.

While Mizzou and Vandy might marginally be vulnerable to the B1G's sweet nothings, I don't think it would be that crippling for the SEC. In that scenario I would backfill with ECU or other B12 schools. I know there was a time when the ACC pondered taking UGA and UF, but that window has closed IMO. GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

I could see Mizzou being conflicted. Vandy is not. They've had a standing offer from the Big 10 for quite some time and like Notre Dame it has been a big "Nyet!"

The SEC is the number one conference in every state they share with the ACC. That is why UNC is so firmly against any N.Carolina school in the SEC. N.C. State and Virginia Tech would have left the ACC footprint bereft of a state they controlled. Think about that.

To the West taking the Oklahoma's or even OU & KU wipes out connectivity to Texas.

Not so in South Carolina and won't be so in Kentucky in another 10 years.
While Virginia Tech has shown no indication of ever wanting to leave the ACC, West Virginia could slip into the VT slot as an acceptable football replacement and an upgrade in basketball.

Adding WVU as a replacement is a rational fan perspective. But I'm sure the ivory tower types on Tobacco Road and in Charlottesville get bitter beer face at the mere thought of rubbing elbows with the 'Eers.

(06-09-2016 02:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:16 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Here are my thoughts:
SEC vs. ACC: While taking FSU/Clemson might hurt their on field football product, the SEC would have to go to Tobacco Road or take UVA to fire a deathblow to the conference. My pick (keep reading): Duke.

SEC vs. Big 10: While many of the conference targets overlap (markets in NC, VA, FL, Texas and Oklahoma), I say that getting Duke best fits the SEC goals, and also hinders the Big 10. While the SEC may be content with Virginia Tech and NC State, taking Duke gives them one of the "big two" in NC, improves the academic standing of the league, gives immediate help in basketball, and an improving football team. Duke isn't necessarily on the Big 10's list, which means they would be an easier grab than UNC or UVA right off the bat, but they could help pull in one of the others. If nothing else, the SEC could be content with Duke on its own.

SEC vs PAC 12: Taking either Texas or OK will limit what the PAC can do. They might still go after Kansas, but that doesn't really harm the SEC.

SEC vs. Big 12: Taking OK destabilizes the league.

Big 10 vs. SEC: Talk to Vandy or Mizzou, but if they are no like they should be, then grab V Tech, the school that most people think is the best fit for the SEC.

If you're going full Stratego, the you need to assess what the real threats are. IMO, I wouldn't view the B1G as a opponent but instead a partner to the SEC. Outside of tOSU, there really isn't a team from that conference I'd like to see in the SEC. The PAC of course is irrelevant due to distance.

Next I would remember the lessons that the ACC demonstrated; don't kill a conference, just leave it impotent. For the B12, taking OU starts the conference swaying like a jenga tower. The B1G could do the same with VT. The available backfills would only lead to further destabilization. Just think about what FSU's reaction would be if UConn was the Hokie's replacement.

While Mizzou and Vandy might marginally be vulnerable to the B1G's sweet nothings, I don't think it would be that crippling for the SEC. In that scenario I would backfill with ECU or other B12 schools. I know there was a time when the ACC pondered taking UGA and UF, but that window has closed IMO. GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

I could see Mizzou being conflicted. Vandy is not. They've had a standing offer from the Big 10 for quite some time and like Notre Dame it has been a big "Nyet!"

The SEC is the number one conference in every state they share with the ACC. That is why UNC is so firmly against any N.Carolina school in the SEC. N.C. State and Virginia Tech would have left the ACC footprint bereft of a state they controlled. Think about that.

To the West taking the Oklahoma's or even OU & KU wipes out connectivity to Texas.

Not so in South Carolina and won't be so in Kentucky in another 10 years.
While Virginia Tech has shown no indication of ever wanting to leave the ACC, West Virginia could slip into the VT slot as an acceptable football replacement and an upgrade in basketball.

South Carolina is close to being a toss up but not quite. Gamecocks 51-52% Tigers 48-49% of football viewers. And I'm sorry but Louisville will make up ground, but will never catch Big Blue!

I'll take any scenario that leads to SEC domination.

(06-10-2016 02:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll take any scenario that leads to continued SEC domination.

FIFY

(06-10-2016 02:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll take any scenario that leads to SEC domination.

By that standard I think there are very few picks that would lead to a retreat

(06-10-2016 02:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll take any scenario that leads to SEC domination.

I will take any scenario that keeps Mizzou in the SEC forever.

(06-13-2016 12:46 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 02:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll take any scenario that leads to SEC domination.

I will take any scenario that keeps Mizzou in the SEC forever.

I'll take "Armageddon Scenarios" for 500 please Alex!"

Your fine Medic only Mizzou can move Mizzou. That's just part of the beauty of being in the SEC. We don't make you pay to leave, and we don't ask you to leave. We figure if you are stupid enough to do that on your own why would we want to stop you! So for Missouri to remain forever all it requires is Missouri's desire to do so.

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

Correct on both counts given the status quo.

I think the Vols would have natural rival fits in GT, Clemson, and VT ... and would fit in pretty well against WF and UNC too.

It only makes sense if the ACC Network were a thing and were able to press home its enormous market and TV advantage for enormous cash.

(06-13-2016 06:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

Correct on both counts given the status quo.

I think the Vols would have natural rival fits in GT, Clemson, and VT ... and would fit in pretty well against WF and UNC too.

It only makes sense if the ACC Network were a thing and were able to press home its enormous market and TV advantage for enormous cash.

The Vols would not have a problem with any of those save Wake. But as I told you in another thread, that ends up being a worse schedule than what UT has currently. Neyland Stadium seats too many people to sign onto a conference with a lukewarm feeling towards CFB; Clemson excepted.

(06-13-2016 07:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 06:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

Correct on both counts given the status quo.

I think the Vols would have natural rival fits in GT, Clemson, and VT ... and would fit in pretty well against WF and UNC too.

It only makes sense if the ACC Network were a thing and were able to press home its enormous market and TV advantage for enormous cash.

The Vols would not have a problem with any of those save Wake. But as I told you in another thread, that ends up being a worse schedule than what UT has currently. Neyland Stadium seats too many people to sign onto a conference with a lukewarm feeling towards CFB; Clemson excepted.

I think Louisville & Tennessee could be a big game but we don't have to be in the same conference to make it happen. We've played 5 times (1914, 1953, 1987, 1991, 1993) with the Vols going 5-0.

(06-13-2016 07:37 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 07:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 06:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

Correct on both counts given the status quo.

I think the Vols would have natural rival fits in GT, Clemson, and VT ... and would fit in pretty well against WF and UNC too.

It only makes sense if the ACC Network were a thing and were able to press home its enormous market and TV advantage for enormous cash.

The Vols would not have a problem with any of those save Wake. But as I told you in another thread, that ends up being a worse schedule than what UT has currently. Neyland Stadium seats too many people to sign onto a conference with a lukewarm feeling towards CFB; Clemson excepted.

I think Louisville & Tennessee could be a big game but we don't have to be in the same conference to make it happen. We've played 5 times (1914, 1953, 1987, 1991, 1993) with the Vols going 5-0.

Exactly. UT can get OOC games with the ACC quite easily. UL would be a good one as I think Card fans would travel well. The Vols have VT this year and GT upcoming. I'd like to see them play Clemson as well.

(06-13-2016 06:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

Correct on both counts given the status quo.

I think the Vols would have natural rival fits in GT, Clemson, and VT ... and would fit in pretty well against WF and UNC too.

It only makes sense if the ACC Network were a thing and were able to press home its enormous market and TV advantage for enormous cash.

I think enormous money could be made from a merger of the SEC with many of the ACC powers. The windfall would come from dominating the content for a large portion of the country. The more content under one roof, the more leverage a league has when it negotiates a contract with a media partner.

(06-13-2016 08:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 07:37 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 07:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 06:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  GTS likes to fanaticize for some reason about UTK going to the ACC, but I don't see how that would benefit the Vols.

Correct on both counts given the status quo.

I think the Vols would have natural rival fits in GT, Clemson, and VT ... and would fit in pretty well against WF and UNC too.

It only makes sense if the ACC Network were a thing and were able to press home its enormous market and TV advantage for enormous cash.

The Vols would not have a problem with any of those save Wake. But as I told you in another thread, that ends up being a worse schedule than what UT has currently. Neyland Stadium seats too many people to sign onto a conference with a lukewarm feeling towards CFB; Clemson excepted.

I think Louisville & Tennessee could be a big game but we don't have to be in the same conference to make it happen. We've played 5 times (1914, 1953, 1987, 1991, 1993) with the Vols going 5-0.

Exactly. UT can get OOC games with the ACC quite easily. UL would be a good one as I think Card fans would travel well. The Vols have VT this year and GT upcoming. I'd like to see them play Clemson as well.

UT can get 'em but they don't want to keep 'em. When the UT PTB realized the Dooley may not be able to beat Butch Davis, UT cancelled a long awaited scheduled match up.