(09-12-2013 09:08 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote: 10th and Medic, I understand where you are coming from based on your history with UT. However, based on your 1 1/2 years of experience in the SEC, which school calls the shots in this league? I think you would be hard pressed to identify a school or even handful of schools that obviously call the shots. Is there some backroom negotiations and compromises that are being made? Definitely, but no one trumps. Case in point: Nick Saban wants a 9 game conference schedule. They are a dynasty right now as much as any program in any sport in recent memory. What does the rest of the SEC think about 9 games? 1-13. No one else wants it, so no one else votes for it. I think you would be surprised by how Texas would have to line up if they came into the SEC. Each school can be themselves. For example, 10th, TAMU fans are more chirpy than what we are used to, and it is definitely a Texas thing. No big deal... we actually love it. It provides another unique layer of "Southern".
I guess what I am saying is remember how you felt in the Big 12 and compare it to now in the SEC. Has your administration and fans had to adjust their outlook? In the Big 12 last year, Texas earned $163 million, Oklahoma earned $106 million, and the next highest is Oklahoma State at $84 million. In the SEC, 9 schools earn more than Oklahoma State. 3 of those schools earn more than Oklahoma (Alabama, Florida, LSU) and Auburn and Tennessee are basically tied with them. I know money isn't everything, but consider that the non-SEC/Big 12 schools that fill out the top 10 revenue schools are Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State... revenue is a pretty good indicator of power in college athletics.
Also, consider that an add of Texas would, at the least, mean a 16 school conference. More likely it would be on the way to 18 or 20 teams. Good luck to anyone trying to corral that big of a group and make them bend the knee.
The following remarks are not doom & gloom, but they are reflective of realistic trends in the coming decades. Cost of competition will become an issue as travel expenses rise. Those costs will affect the fans as much, if not a bit more, than it affects the schools. Playing strong rivals within a reasonable driving distance will eventually trump academic peer status.
As the our country continues to assimilate different cultures and as state laws continue to diverge from one another, and because of the high cost of travel, regionalism will become more important because of cultural fit of the fan base and student body than because of academic outlook.
Because the debt strapped economies of states and the Federal government are not going to disappear for decades, games that yield the most profits will be preferred as a rule over fluff games and big name games that will require expensive travel. This again points toward future regionalism.
Now while some might argue that this means conference size will devolve back into 10 team groupings, I think not. Each conference generally absorbs the share of 1 conference team for operations. For those of you who think that 14 teams are too many and that 20 is impossible, I think you are overlooking yet another compelling financial reason for growing, the elimination of what amounts to 1/10 or 1/12 of the overhead preventing your school from making more money. Add that to the internal playoff revenue of such a structure and the enticement to go large is even greater.
Then there are those who say that big name schools won't want to join the SEC because their chance of winning the national title will be gone. This is another flawed understanding of what is actually happening. We are moving closer and closer to deciding the championship on the field. The days of 3 patsies, 1 name brand OOC game, and a conference championship as the best path to the national title are about to be over. In the future there will be much less of a beauty pageant. The new game will be winning your division. Divisional titles will buy your ticket to the playoff. So if you are Texas or Oklahoma and you desire to play big rivals who are close to home would you rather play Baylor, T.C.U., Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State every year and try to get your fans jazzed about that, or would you rather play Arkansas, Texas A&M, L.S.U., and Missouri? In the old system you needed to go undefeated if possible. In the new system all you have to do is win your division. Patsies won't mean a damned thing in the new system. The 4 or 5 divisional games will mean everything. And quite frankly that is how it should always have been.
So what I am saying is that in the new mega conference your division will become the equivalent of the really old 7 and 8 team regional conference. 4 such regional divisions will equal the mega conference. The crossover play will provide all of the names you need to maximize attendance and keep media interest peaked. Your pathway to a championship will be well defined and your destiny will always be in your own hands. Add to this that your overhead will be less, and potential earnings higher and I just don't get the irrational knee jerk reactions to the prospect of an all star 20 or 24 team SEC. It will only provide better football, basketball, and baseball, and every other sport for that matter, make our schools more economically viable in the process, and provide what will finally be a fair path to championships in athletics.
And, since we are headed toward regional divisions inside geographically based conferences, why would we want to exclude our fiercest rivals from a system where we are all likely to only play each other?
Face it we got the BCS because the anger of the fans over the obvious media based rigged beauty pageant every year was pissing off the masses of fans who saw it for what it was. The BCS championship means a bit more to me than the old voted by the newspaper titles. The playoff champion will mean even more to me than the BCS championship. We are headed to where we always needed to be.
Your college president and head football coach are business people. If it earns them more to bring Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, N.C. State and Virginia Tech into the fold they will. This will be especially true if N.C. State, UNC, Viriginia, Virginia Tech, and Kentucky get to play in the same division. By doing this these schools keep their most important teams to play and associate with without having to worry that they will be pieced out to several conferences. Why would they choose that over a sprawling conference with which they had little in common. The ACC always talks about their terrific footprint, but it is also their greatest weakness. What does Georgia Tech and Clemson have in common with Pittsburgh or Boston College? Yeah you are going to say academics, but beyond similar academic pursuits what do they have in common? Nothing. We are talking sports. I doubt someone in Clemson gets worked up about the Eagles. Sports passions are local first, regional second, and national last. Why should sports associations dictate who can and can't associate academically? Why should academic associations determine who you can and can't play athletically? They shouldn't and that's going to have to go as well. But for now one issue at a time.
It is illogical for Texas and Oklahoma to move their play to the West coast or to the North if they can play regionally. If anything happens to the Big 12 the SEC is actually the only practical solution to their problem. And if we move to 3 mega conferences it would be stupid for Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State to play in the Big 10. The economy and higher travel costs will eventually dictate a pan regional approach in spite of what academicians, network executives, and head coaches want. It will be cheaper and less painful while changes are being made to go ahead and just go there rather than having to change course again in 20 years.
