(08-08-2016 07:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 03:22 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 11:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 07:41 PM)otown Wrote:  i vote for no expansion. i think the SEC is fine where it currently stands. Only school i would be fine adding from the big 12 is OU. the problem is that i dont see any other school being a fit to go along with them.

+1

I'm fine with no expansion.

I'm a believer that any expansion at this point, given what's on the table, will only serve to dilute the SEC.

I don't think OSU dilutes the SEC. They have a great program and play on a pretty big stage.

I'd have to disagree strongly with you.

I think OSU would be among the worst possible additions for a lot of reasons.

I'd call the athletic program and school well below average for this level.

IIRC Oklahoma State just finished 13th in the latest Director's Cup standings.


OOPS!, my bad 18th (it was the Sooners that finished 14th)
Alabama, BTW finished 32nd.

Color me unimpressed.

(08-08-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 03:22 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 11:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2016 07:41 PM)otown Wrote:  i vote for no expansion. i think the SEC is fine where it currently stands. Only school i would be fine adding from the big 12 is OU. the problem is that i dont see any other school being a fit to go along with them.

+1

I'm fine with no expansion.

I'm a believer that any expansion at this point, given what's on the table, will only serve to dilute the SEC.

I don't think OSU dilutes the SEC. They have a great program and play on a pretty big stage.

I'd have to disagree strongly with you.

I think OSU would be among the worst possible additions for a lot of reasons.

I'd call the athletic program and school well below average for this level.

Well actually OSU's athletic department has won 51 titles in a variety of sports, just not football. I think they would compliment what we already do well.

What two additions to the West would do is to reconstitute the core of the core of the old SEC sans the Mississippi schools and L.S.U.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt cover just about all of our rivalries. L.S.U.'s oldest rivalries were with A&M and Ole Miss. Alabama can keep Miss State as a permanent rival and away we go.

I think expansion fixes more than it hurts at this point.

The primary driver remains football.

Programs also tend towards their center over time.

OSU is barely over 500 all-time.

I think that recent success is blinding some folks.

I see OSU as the new basement dweller in the long run.

Realignment is a 20+ year decision at the shortest and a 100 year decision at its widest. Prior performance doesn't say they are a strong addition.

(08-08-2016 07:12 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 03:22 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 11:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  +1

I'm fine with no expansion.

I'm a believer that any expansion at this point, given what's on the table, will only serve to dilute the SEC.

I don't think OSU dilutes the SEC. They have a great program and play on a pretty big stage.

I'd have to disagree strongly with you.

I think OSU would be among the worst possible additions for a lot of reasons.

I'd call the athletic program and school well below average for this level.

Well actually OSU's athletic department has won 51 titles in a variety of sports, just not football. I think they would compliment what we already do well.

What two additions to the West would do is to reconstitute the core of the core of the old SEC sans the Mississippi schools and L.S.U.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt cover just about all of our rivalries. L.S.U.'s oldest rivalries were with A&M and Ole Miss. Alabama can keep Miss State as a permanent rival and away we go.

I think expansion fixes more than it hurts at this point.

The only question is the academic side. Not sure how they rate, but their football program is pretty solid. We would have the Bedlam game within the SEC too. Would be their last game of the season. I think it works.

The finished higher than Mississippi State. Our other 13 finished ahead of them.

I should probably preface everything I say about OSU with the fact that they are certainly one of the better all over programs in the nation, considering all of the FBS program as out there.

However, when it comes to joining the best league in the land I don't see a lot of value in adding a program/school that is roughly equivalent to the generally accepted weakest member--being Miss. State.

If we make an addition it ought to be one that adds to the conference average. Unfortunately, OSU doesn't do that.

That isn't to take anything away from them because they are part of the great club, like almost every P5 school.

(08-08-2016 07:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I should probably preface everything I say about OSU with the fact that they are certainly one of the better all over programs in the nation, considering all of the FBS program as out there.

However, when it comes to joining the best league in the land I don't see a lot of value in adding a program/school that is roughly equivalent to the generally accepted weakest member--being Miss. State.

If we make an addition it ought to be one that adds to the conference average. Unfortunately, OSU doesn't do that.

That isn't to take anything away from them because they are part of the great club, like almost every P5 school.

I am pretty sure we will have to write off OU, if OSU is a no-go. I think they are a pair, and not sure Oklahoma law even allows a split.

(08-08-2016 08:45 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 07:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I should probably preface everything I say about OSU with the fact that they are certainly one of the better all over programs in the nation, considering all of the FBS program as out there.

However, when it comes to joining the best league in the land I don't see a lot of value in adding a program/school that is roughly equivalent to the generally accepted weakest member--being Miss. State.

If we make an addition it ought to be one that adds to the conference average. Unfortunately, OSU doesn't do that.

That isn't to take anything away from them because they are part of the great club, like almost every P5 school.

I am pretty sure we will have to write off OU, if OSU is a no-go. I think they are a pair, and not sure Oklahoma law even allows a split.

Well, this is a Doris Day moment, "Que Sera Sera What Ever Will Be, Will Be. The Future's Not Our's To See, Que Sera Sera." So it's either Sooners & Pokes, or a repeat of the last 24 years which by the way is the anomaly in the SEC traditions. But it's all you youngsters know so you believe it to be gestalt. But, that's fine too as it is more your future, than mine, at least proportionally speaking.

(08-08-2016 09:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:45 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 07:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I should probably preface everything I say about OSU with the fact that they are certainly one of the better all over programs in the nation, considering all of the FBS program as out there.

However, when it comes to joining the best league in the land I don't see a lot of value in adding a program/school that is roughly equivalent to the generally accepted weakest member--being Miss. State.

If we make an addition it ought to be one that adds to the conference average. Unfortunately, OSU doesn't do that.

That isn't to take anything away from them because they are part of the great club, like almost every P5 school.

I am pretty sure we will have to write off OU, if OSU is a no-go. I think they are a pair, and not sure Oklahoma law even allows a split.

Well, this is a Doris Day moment, "Que Sera Sera What Ever Will Be, Will Be. The Future's Not Our's To See, Que Sera Sera." So it's either Sooners & Pokes, or a repeat of the last 24 years which by the way is the anomaly in the SEC traditions. But it's all you youngsters know so you believe it to be gestalt. But, that's fine too as it is more your future, than mine, at least proportionally speaking.

Who's Doris Day?

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 12:56 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas

SEC West:
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 12:56 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas

SEC West:
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome to the board.

I don't mind the idea of OU and KU. It might be the best deal we can get out of the Big 12. Not sure it will work out that way though.

(08-09-2016 02:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 12:56 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas

SEC West:
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome to the board.

I don't mind the idea of OU and KU. It might be the best deal we can get out of the Big 12. Not sure it will work out that way though.

Thanks! I've been here a while, mostly just lurking, but with all the realignment talk going on and football season coming up I figured now is as good as any time to start posting!

I really just hope we don't settle just because we want to get in and get them. There are other adds that make more sense but, there are GOR's currently in the way.

(08-09-2016 02:57 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 12:56 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas

SEC West:
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome to the board.

I don't mind the idea of OU and KU. It might be the best deal we can get out of the Big 12. Not sure it will work out that way though.

Thanks! I've been here a while, mostly just lurking, but with all the realignment talk going on and football season coming up I figured now is as good as any time to start posting!

I really just hope we don't settle just because we want to get in and get them. There are other adds that make more sense but, there are GOR's currently in the way.

War Damn Eagle!

I think the biggest obstacle to a North Carolina or Virginia school, is, has been, and will be, ESPN. As long as they are under a GOR and as long as ESPN pays the greatest % of the SEC's revenue, we will not be in a position to poach the ACC. And that will be probably for longer than my natural life span.

So from my point of view the Big 12 breakup will yield 3 brands that would add revenue to the SEC outright. In order of their importance to us would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. Reverse the first two for all conferences that do not presently have a school in Texas. There are a couple of reasonable travel companions for these schools. Oklahoma State is probably the best suited. Iowa State as an AAU school with a strong following and strong basketball would be another, but they would only ever be a regional fit for a new Western Division. IMO Texas Tech is just too far away and A&M gives us everything they could give us.

So while my preference for Florida State and Clemson has remained for 25 years, and while as an old Auburn guy who loved our rivalry with Georgia Tech, I must acknowledge the realities of a much more complex business world than the one in which we played three decades ago.

I think the ACC will be with us now long term. If that becomes our partner conference to finish out our regional rivals on the schedule then so be it.

If expansion must come to the West let's make the most of it. I think ideally for geography's sake and for proximity for travel we'd be better off adding 4 and splitting into 3 divisions of 6 intentionally focused on proximity issues.

For instance:

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M would make for a reasonable division for a new West.

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt would make for a nice Central Division.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee would be great for the East.

Auburn once played Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida annually. Vanderbilt is a natural rival of Ole Miss. Tennessee can't be separated from Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

The victim here is Alabama and Tennessee. We would keep one permanent rival each in this setup and Alabama / Auburn would be protected.

L.S.U. never wanted Florida as a rival and vice versa. That was a creation of the realignment in '92 which also separated Auburn from its natural recruiting grounds in Georgia, Florida and Southern Tennessee. The politics behind that were intentional by Alabama.

That wrong needs to be righted.

If we simply move to 16 the result will be something like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

While that's pretty nice too the distances are somewhat greater and the in grouping rivals are reduced.

(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:57 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome to the board.

I don't mind the idea of OU and KU. It might be the best deal we can get out of the Big 12. Not sure it will work out that way though.

Thanks! I've been here a while, mostly just lurking, but with all the realignment talk going on and football season coming up I figured now is as good as any time to start posting!

I really just hope we don't settle just because we want to get in and get them. There are other adds that make more sense but, there are GOR's currently in the way.

War Damn Eagle!

I think the biggest obstacle to a North Carolina or Virginia school, is, has been, and will be, ESPN. As long as they are under a GOR and as long as ESPN pays the greatest % of the SEC's revenue, we will not be in a position to poach the ACC. And that will be probably for longer than my natural life span.

So from my point of view the Big 12 breakup will yield 3 brands that would add revenue to the SEC outright. In order of their importance to us would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. Reverse the first two for all conferences that do not presently have a school in Texas. There are a couple of reasonable travel companions for these schools. Oklahoma State is probably the best suited. Iowa State as an AAU school with a strong following and strong basketball would be another, but they would only ever be a regional fit for a new Western Division. IMO Texas Tech is just too far away and A&M gives us everything they could give us.

So while my preference for Florida State and Clemson has remained for 25 years, and while as an old Auburn guy who loved our rivalry with Georgia Tech, I must acknowledge the realities of a much more complex business world than the one in which we played three decades ago.

I think the ACC will be with us now long term. If that becomes our partner conference to finish out our regional rivals on the schedule then so be it.

If expansion must come to the West let's make the most of it. I think ideally for geography's sake and for proximity for travel we'd be better off adding 4 and splitting into 3 divisions of 6 intentionally focused on proximity issues.

For instance:

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M would make for a reasonable division for a new West.

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt would make for a nice Central Division.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee would be great for the East.

Auburn once played Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida annually. Vanderbilt is a natural rival of Ole Miss. Tennessee can't be separated from Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

The victim here is Alabama and Tennessee. We would keep one permanent rival each in this setup and Alabama / Auburn would be protected.

L.S.U. never wanted Florida as a rival and vice versa. That was a creation of the realignment in '92 which also separated Auburn from its natural recruiting grounds in Georgia, Florida and Southern Tennessee. The politics behind that were intentional by Alabama.

That wrong needs to be righted.

If we simply move to 16 the result will be something like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

While that's pretty nice too the distances are somewhat greater and the in grouping rivals are reduced.

Nice post, and yes if we're going Big 12 and that is our only real option then I like Kansas and Oklahoma.

For personal reasons I just wish Texas would go independent.

(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The victim here is Alabama and Tennessee. We would keep one permanent rival each in this setup and Alabama / Auburn would be protected.

Giving up the Third Saturday in October would be akin to giving up Auburn/Georgia. Neither will ever happen.

There are plenty of ways to compromise and make sure everyone gets pretty much everything they want. It's actually one of the benefits of growing larger as each division can contain more natural rivals.

3 divisions of 6 is a good setup.

I'd stick Arkansas in a division with the West though as it's a little more geographically concise if we're taking a few Big 12 schools.

West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa State

Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

East: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I think 9 league games is inevitable: 5 divisions games, 1 permanent rivalry from each of the other divisions, 1 rotating match-up from each of the others

(08-09-2016 09:17 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:57 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome to the board.

I don't mind the idea of OU and KU. It might be the best deal we can get out of the Big 12. Not sure it will work out that way though.

Thanks! I've been here a while, mostly just lurking, but with all the realignment talk going on and football season coming up I figured now is as good as any time to start posting!

I really just hope we don't settle just because we want to get in and get them. There are other adds that make more sense but, there are GOR's currently in the way.

War Damn Eagle!

I think the biggest obstacle to a North Carolina or Virginia school, is, has been, and will be, ESPN. As long as they are under a GOR and as long as ESPN pays the greatest % of the SEC's revenue, we will not be in a position to poach the ACC. And that will be probably for longer than my natural life span.

So from my point of view the Big 12 breakup will yield 3 brands that would add revenue to the SEC outright. In order of their importance to us would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. Reverse the first two for all conferences that do not presently have a school in Texas. There are a couple of reasonable travel companions for these schools. Oklahoma State is probably the best suited. Iowa State as an AAU school with a strong following and strong basketball would be another, but they would only ever be a regional fit for a new Western Division. IMO Texas Tech is just too far away and A&M gives us everything they could give us.

So while my preference for Florida State and Clemson has remained for 25 years, and while as an old Auburn guy who loved our rivalry with Georgia Tech, I must acknowledge the realities of a much more complex business world than the one in which we played three decades ago.

I think the ACC will be with us now long term. If that becomes our partner conference to finish out our regional rivals on the schedule then so be it.

If expansion must come to the West let's make the most of it. I think ideally for geography's sake and for proximity for travel we'd be better off adding 4 and splitting into 3 divisions of 6 intentionally focused on proximity issues.

For instance:

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M would make for a reasonable division for a new West.

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt would make for a nice Central Division.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee would be great for the East.

Auburn once played Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida annually. Vanderbilt is a natural rival of Ole Miss. Tennessee can't be separated from Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

The victim here is Alabama and Tennessee. We would keep one permanent rival each in this setup and Alabama / Auburn would be protected.

L.S.U. never wanted Florida as a rival and vice versa. That was a creation of the realignment in '92 which also separated Auburn from its natural recruiting grounds in Georgia, Florida and Southern Tennessee. The politics behind that were intentional by Alabama.

That wrong needs to be righted.

If we simply move to 16 the result will be something like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

While that's pretty nice too the distances are somewhat greater and the in grouping rivals are reduced.

Nice post, and yes if we're going Big 12 and that is our only real option then I like Kansas and Oklahoma.

For personal reasons I just wish Texas would go independent.

This is where you have always been wrong JR.

(08-11-2016 06:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 09:17 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:57 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Welcome to the board.

I don't mind the idea of OU and KU. It might be the best deal we can get out of the Big 12. Not sure it will work out that way though.

Thanks! I've been here a while, mostly just lurking, but with all the realignment talk going on and football season coming up I figured now is as good as any time to start posting!

I really just hope we don't settle just because we want to get in and get them. There are other adds that make more sense but, there are GOR's currently in the way.

War Damn Eagle!

I think the biggest obstacle to a North Carolina or Virginia school, is, has been, and will be, ESPN. As long as they are under a GOR and as long as ESPN pays the greatest % of the SEC's revenue, we will not be in a position to poach the ACC. And that will be probably for longer than my natural life span.

So from my point of view the Big 12 breakup will yield 3 brands that would add revenue to the SEC outright. In order of their importance to us would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. Reverse the first two for all conferences that do not presently have a school in Texas. There are a couple of reasonable travel companions for these schools. Oklahoma State is probably the best suited. Iowa State as an AAU school with a strong following and strong basketball would be another, but they would only ever be a regional fit for a new Western Division. IMO Texas Tech is just too far away and A&M gives us everything they could give us.

So while my preference for Florida State and Clemson has remained for 25 years, and while as an old Auburn guy who loved our rivalry with Georgia Tech, I must acknowledge the realities of a much more complex business world than the one in which we played three decades ago.

I think the ACC will be with us now long term. If that becomes our partner conference to finish out our regional rivals on the schedule then so be it.

If expansion must come to the West let's make the most of it. I think ideally for geography's sake and for proximity for travel we'd be better off adding 4 and splitting into 3 divisions of 6 intentionally focused on proximity issues.

For instance:

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M would make for a reasonable division for a new West.

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt would make for a nice Central Division.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee would be great for the East.

Auburn once played Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida annually. Vanderbilt is a natural rival of Ole Miss. Tennessee can't be separated from Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

The victim here is Alabama and Tennessee. We would keep one permanent rival each in this setup and Alabama / Auburn would be protected.

L.S.U. never wanted Florida as a rival and vice versa. That was a creation of the realignment in '92 which also separated Auburn from its natural recruiting grounds in Georgia, Florida and Southern Tennessee. The politics behind that were intentional by Alabama.

That wrong needs to be righted.

If we simply move to 16 the result will be something like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

While that's pretty nice too the distances are somewhat greater and the in grouping rivals are reduced.

Nice post, and yes if we're going Big 12 and that is our only real option then I like Kansas and Oklahoma.

For personal reasons I just wish Texas would go independent.

This is where you have always been wrong JR.

Don't just proclaim, explain!?

(08-11-2016 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 09:17 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:57 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  Thanks! I've been here a while, mostly just lurking, but with all the realignment talk going on and football season coming up I figured now is as good as any time to start posting!

I really just hope we don't settle just because we want to get in and get them. There are other adds that make more sense but, there are GOR's currently in the way.

War Damn Eagle!

I think the biggest obstacle to a North Carolina or Virginia school, is, has been, and will be, ESPN. As long as they are under a GOR and as long as ESPN pays the greatest % of the SEC's revenue, we will not be in a position to poach the ACC. And that will be probably for longer than my natural life span.

So from my point of view the Big 12 breakup will yield 3 brands that would add revenue to the SEC outright. In order of their importance to us would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. Reverse the first two for all conferences that do not presently have a school in Texas. There are a couple of reasonable travel companions for these schools. Oklahoma State is probably the best suited. Iowa State as an AAU school with a strong following and strong basketball would be another, but they would only ever be a regional fit for a new Western Division. IMO Texas Tech is just too far away and A&M gives us everything they could give us.

So while my preference for Florida State and Clemson has remained for 25 years, and while as an old Auburn guy who loved our rivalry with Georgia Tech, I must acknowledge the realities of a much more complex business world than the one in which we played three decades ago.

I think the ACC will be with us now long term. If that becomes our partner conference to finish out our regional rivals on the schedule then so be it.

If expansion must come to the West let's make the most of it. I think ideally for geography's sake and for proximity for travel we'd be better off adding 4 and splitting into 3 divisions of 6 intentionally focused on proximity issues.

For instance:

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M would make for a reasonable division for a new West.

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt would make for a nice Central Division.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee would be great for the East.

Auburn once played Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida annually. Vanderbilt is a natural rival of Ole Miss. Tennessee can't be separated from Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

The victim here is Alabama and Tennessee. We would keep one permanent rival each in this setup and Alabama / Auburn would be protected.

L.S.U. never wanted Florida as a rival and vice versa. That was a creation of the realignment in '92 which also separated Auburn from its natural recruiting grounds in Georgia, Florida and Southern Tennessee. The politics behind that were intentional by Alabama.

That wrong needs to be righted.

If we simply move to 16 the result will be something like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

While that's pretty nice too the distances are somewhat greater and the in grouping rivals are reduced.

Nice post, and yes if we're going Big 12 and that is our only real option then I like Kansas and Oklahoma.

For personal reasons I just wish Texas would go independent.

This is where you have always been wrong JR.

Don't just proclaim, explain!?

ESPN is not standing in the way, the schools are happy where they are and just don't want to join your league.

(08-11-2016 08:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 09:17 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  War Damn Eagle!

I think the biggest obstacle to a North Carolina or Virginia school, is, has been, and will be, ESPN. As long as they are under a GOR and as long as ESPN pays the greatest % of the SEC's revenue, we will not be in a position to poach the ACC. And that will be probably for longer than my natural life span.

So from my point of view the Big 12 breakup will yield 3 brands that would add revenue to the SEC outright. In order of their importance to us would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. Reverse the first two for all conferences that do not presently have a school in Texas. There are a couple of reasonable travel companions for these schools. Oklahoma State is probably the best suited. Iowa State as an AAU school with a strong following and strong basketball would be another, but they would only ever be a regional fit for a new Western Division. IMO Texas Tech is just too far away and A&M gives us everything they could give us.

So while my preference for Florida State and Clemson has remained for 25 years, and while as an old Auburn guy who loved our rivalry with Georgia Tech, I must acknowledge the realities of a much more complex business world than the one in which we played three decades ago.

I think the ACC will be with us now long term. If that becomes our partner conference to finish out our regional rivals on the schedule then so be it.

If expansion must come to the West let's make the most of it. I think ideally for geography's sake and for proximity for travel we'd be better off adding 4 and splitting into 3 divisions of 6 intentionally focused on proximity issues.

For instance:

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M would make for a reasonable division for a new West.

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt would make for a nice Central Division.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee would be great for the East.

Auburn once played Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida annually. Vanderbilt is a natural rival of Ole Miss. Tennessee can't be separated from Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

The victim here is Alabama and Tennessee. We would keep one permanent rival each in this setup and Alabama / Auburn would be protected.

L.S.U. never wanted Florida as a rival and vice versa. That was a creation of the realignment in '92 which also separated Auburn from its natural recruiting grounds in Georgia, Florida and Southern Tennessee. The politics behind that were intentional by Alabama.

That wrong needs to be righted.

If we simply move to 16 the result will be something like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

While that's pretty nice too the distances are somewhat greater and the in grouping rivals are reduced.

Nice post, and yes if we're going Big 12 and that is our only real option then I like Kansas and Oklahoma.

For personal reasons I just wish Texas would go independent.

This is where you have always been wrong JR.

Don't just proclaim, explain!?

ESPN is not standing in the way, the schools are happy where they are and just don't want to join your league.

I'm sure in the case of U.N.C. & Virginia & Duke you are correct. I'm not so sure about some of the others.

(08-11-2016 08:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 09:17 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  Nice post, and yes if we're going Big 12 and that is our only real option then I like Kansas and Oklahoma.

For personal reasons I just wish Texas would go independent.

This is where you have always been wrong JR.

Don't just proclaim, explain!?

ESPN is not standing in the way, the schools are happy where they are and just don't want to join your league.

I'm sure in the case of U.N.C. & Virginia & Duke you are correct. I'm not so sure about some of the others.

And money talks in the end game. Schools will follow the big money trail. You can bank on it.

(08-11-2016 08:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is where you have always been wrong JR.

Don't just proclaim, explain!?

ESPN is not standing in the way, the schools are happy where they are and just don't want to join your league.

When it comes to NC State, I think the greater likelihood is that UNC is standing in their way.

Virginia Tech probably doesn't care too much either way as long as they are in a stable situation. From the point of view, things are fine so why change unless they need to.

(08-11-2016 08:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 09:17 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  Nice post, and yes if we're going Big 12 and that is our only real option then I like Kansas and Oklahoma.

For personal reasons I just wish Texas would go independent.

This is where you have always been wrong JR.

Don't just proclaim, explain!?

ESPN is not standing in the way, the schools are happy where they are and just don't want to join your league.

I'm sure in the case of U.N.C. & Virginia & Duke you are correct. I'm not so sure about some of the others.

Sorry, JR..........you need to stick to your own knitting.