Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,198
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7914
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #341
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 10:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

We are complete agreement on this. Right now the most perfect expansion possible is OU & UT, and if Aggie is inconsolable, OU & KU.

I've laid out on numerous occasions why I think that the Arkansas add was a bridge to Texas in 1992 and why A&M & Mizzou were terrific in their own right, but also made OU have to consider a more natural fit with the SEC should the Big 12 blow up. Obviously North Carolina and Virginia would be a major coup. I just think it becomes easier to get North Carolina and Virginia if you already have Texas and Oklahoma.

The home run scenario is to add those last 4 and break into 3 balanced, regional divisions of 6 each and have 3 divisional champs and the remaining team with the best record to comprise the conference championship playoff with one game in the West for exposure and one game in the East with the CCG staying in Atlanta, or alternating between Atlanta and Dallas.

But, Vandiver's presentation has merit for 1 very big reason. If any conference lands both Texas and OU the other's are not going to cooperate to absorb the Big 12 remnants so that one walks away with the jewels. So compromise might lead to something like he has listed.

The dissolution of the Big 12 adds that share of the playoff revenue back to the portions received by the other 4 conferences. That's going to be a little over a million per team for the remaining conferences. That's a pretty good reason to cooperate more than would normally be expected.

I'm not sold on the Big12 going the way of the dodo. That's to say that even if there is a change I don't think those programs find their way to the SEC.

College football fans love their regional identity and throwing those traditional powers into the SEC is unlikely to satisfy their fans, or ours.

That's the bow of a greater argument against super conferences in general I suppose.

I understand that aspect of the argument as well. But we have a network to feed now and that is part of the super conference dna. If you accept that outside of a few original conference schools that the SEC is about Flagship state schools who are preferably AAU and from a new market then our expansion list to 16 is rather brief: Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia (Oklahoma excepted on AAU). If you are talking about AAU state flagship schools who add profitability you can add Texas.

If you want a solid cultural fit then the answer is none of them. If you want a general cultural fit then throw out Kansas.

Sixteen is going to be necessary for the coming structural changes designed to enhance revenue. So if our options are realistically Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and an outside possibility of Duke with U.N.C. then you are down to cases on which conference can be poached. I don't think the ACC can be poached before the D4 is determined. I do think for the sake of structure and profitability that the elimination of the Big 12 will be essential. Maybe not at this time, but at sometime down the road.

Then there is the matter of overcoming scheduling issues within the SEC. If you are considering the difficulties of this quagmire Texas and Oklahoma make more sense than North Carolina and Virginia. With two more additions from the West the division will break down more along the lines of the L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools with the newbies and the heart of the Old SEC in the East with their traditional rivals (save S.Car.).

It really can't be argued that if the SEC had both Texas and A&M that a state of 26 million would be owned by the SEC outright no matter where the other Texas schools wind up. With Oklahoma the SEC has the RRSO, and the restoration of the Horns and Aggies, plus all of the content matches between those two and Arkansas and L.S.U. and Missouri.

If the West is broken into two pods and the East into two pods then you could rotate a West divisional playoff game between Kansas City, New Orleans, and Dallas, and rotate the East games between Charlotte, Atlanta, or Jacksonville. The exposure, the revenue generated by the two additional conference championship games, and the additional content would be huge for revenue.

The drawback to Texas and Oklahoma would be the perceived lack of strength added to hoops.

As far as adding two strong brands to a conference swollen with strong brands all I can say is that the path to the playoffs would be no harder than before. Win your division and you are in. The conference champions of the 4 surviving conferences will eventually play it off. So winning your division puts your destiny in your own hands.

But I totally understand your viewpoint and I have previously held that viewpoint. I just think the paradigm has shifted significantly.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2013 10:52 AM by JRsec.)
10-14-2013 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #342
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 10:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

We are complete agreement on this. Right now the most perfect expansion possible is OU & UT, and if Aggie is inconsolable, OU & KU.

I've laid out on numerous occasions why I think that the Arkansas add was a bridge to Texas in 1992 and why A&M & Mizzou were terrific in their own right, but also made OU have to consider a more natural fit with the SEC should the Big 12 blow up. Obviously North Carolina and Virginia would be a major coup. I just think it becomes easier to get North Carolina and Virginia if you already have Texas and Oklahoma.

The home run scenario is to add those last 4 and break into 3 balanced, regional divisions of 6 each and have 3 divisional champs and the remaining team with the best record to comprise the conference championship playoff with one game in the West for exposure and one game in the East with the CCG staying in Atlanta, or alternating between Atlanta and Dallas.

But, Vandiver's presentation has merit for 1 very big reason. If any conference lands both Texas and OU the other's are not going to cooperate to absorb the Big 12 remnants so that one walks away with the jewels. So compromise might lead to something like he has listed.

The dissolution of the Big 12 adds that share of the playoff revenue back to the portions received by the other 4 conferences. That's going to be a little over a million per team for the remaining conferences. That's a pretty good reason to cooperate more than would normally be expected.

I'm not sold on the Big12 going the way of the dodo. That's to say that even if there is a change I don't think those programs find their way to the SEC.

College football fans love their regional identity and throwing those traditional powers into the SEC is unlikely to satisfy their fans, or ours.

That's the bow of a greater argument against super conferences in general I suppose.

I understand that aspect of the argument as well. But we have a network to feed now and that is part of the super conference dna. If you accept that outside of a few original conference schools that the SEC is about Flagship state schools who are preferably AAU and from a new market then our expansion list to 16 is rather brief: Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia (Oklahoma excepted on AAU). If you are talking about AAU state flagship schools who add profitability you can add Texas.

If you want a solid cultural fit then the answer is none of them. If you want a general cultural fit then throw out Kansas.

Sixteen is going to be necessary for the coming structural changes designed to enhance revenue. So if our options are realistically Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and an outside possibility of Duke with U.N.C. then you are down to cases on which conference can be poached. I don't think the ACC can be poached before the D4 is determined. I do think for the sake of structure and profitability that the elimination of the Big 12 will be essential. Maybe not at this time, but at sometime down the road.

Then there is the matter of overcoming scheduling issues within the SEC. If you are considering the difficulties of this quagmire Texas and Oklahoma make more sense than North Carolina and Virginia. With two more additions from the West the division will break down more along the lines of the L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools with the newbies and the heart of the Old SEC in the East with their traditional rivals (save S.Car.).

It really can't be argued that if the SEC had both Texas and A&M that a state of 26 million would be owned by the SEC outright no matter where the other Texas schools wind up. With Oklahoma the SEC has the RRSO, and the restoration of the Horns and Aggies, plus all of the content matches between those two and Arkansas and L.S.U. and Missouri.

If the West is broken into two pods and the East into two pods then you could rotate a West divisional playoff game between Kansas City, New Orleans, and Dallas, and rotate the East games between Charlotte, Atlanta, or Jacksonville. The exposure, the revenue generated by the two additional conference championship games, and the additional content would be huge for revenue.

The drawback to Texas and Oklahoma would be the perceived lack of strength added to hoops.

As far as adding two strong brands to a conference swollen with strong brands all I can say is that the path to the playoffs would be no harder than before. Win your division and you are in. The conference champions of the 4 surviving conferences will eventually play it off. So winning your division puts your destiny in your own hands.

But I totally understand your viewpoint and have held that viewpoint myself before. I just think the paradigm has shifted significantly.

All great points.

I just feel that we are starting to reach the point where conference realignment will have a deleterious effect on the long term health of the game and the conferences. When historical games start to get broken up interest will decline for many. It's the death of the pageantry and I think that's a cornerstone of the game in the minds of a large portion of the fans.

There is also a disconnect for fans. Say OU and UT join the SEC, will the Red-River Rivalry be a true SEC event in anything but name? It's all a guess but I think the pursuit of viewers and fans is going to start to erode the base when the brand name starts to separate from its own essence and classic match ups are replaced for a viewing audience outside the core.
10-14-2013 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #343
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 09:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 07:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Longhorns will call, I think Luck stays at WVU. But whoever is the next Texas AD, conference realignment will be the number 3 priority right after finding and new FB coach and fixing the rest of the Athletic Department. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the B12 as constituted, lacks the necessary pieces the appease the other P4 sufficiently. That's why I really like your idea of VT and NCSU to the SEC. I actually think to work for all parties, Mizzou to the B10 must be on the table as well.

SEC:
Lose - Mizzou
Add - WVU, NCSU, VT

ACC:
Lose - NCSU, VT
Add - Texas, Baylor, OKST, KSU

B1G:
Add - Mizzou, UConn

PAC:
Add - OU, TT, KU, ISU

Realignment takes a temporary hold at this point to renegotiate with FOX/ESPN as well as Gage the fan backlash from this shuffle. After reading the tea leaves, the 4 conferences decide to go to 18 with a minimum payout of $23 million for all P4 teams. This is where TCU and Cincinnati get invited back to the party.

I can play along with that scenario, but who would you choose as #17 & #18 for each conference. The reason I ask is because if for instance I was the PAC commissioner I could rest fairly well assured that Nevada or New Mexico, or San Diego State would be there if I wanted them.

In the East it's a whole different matter. Who I take at #15 & #16 would be must takes. Who I take at #17 & #18 would be those that either brought in niche markets or met another need, like academics or AAU affiliation for the SECU.

For instance does the SEC show interest in another Texas school that really wouldn't threaten A&M as 10th has suggested, and would the SEC expand into an Ohio Market with someone like Cincinnati. In your scenario ECU wouldn't be a necessary reach with N.C. State on hand.

I think T.C.U. in your scenario is still available and might make a decent 17 or 18 for the SEC since the bring the DFW market. Cincinnati is competitive in all the major sports and gives you a niche market you don't have in a large state. Personally I would favor T.C.U. in this scenario but would be split over the Cincinnati question. At some point we might want a Gulf coast Florida school like USF.

IMO, picks 17 and 18 are strictly appeasement/scheduling additions due to the lack of AAU additions and the need to keep Congress at bay. In this scenario, ECU retains the same outside chance that it currently has today.

SEC: SMU, UCF

With regard to an additional team in TX, the crux is not A&M but the rest of the teams in the SEC West. Adding TCU/SMU would not be considered a threat by anyone but the Aggies. While I don't like saturating the FL market, I believe adding UCF would easily tie/displace Miami as the #3 school in the state if given the resources.

PAC: UNLV, UNM

For the PAC, I've always thought that it would be one of the 2 Nevada (UNV or UNLV for its market) schools along with UNM. I can't really see how SDSU get past the controlling Cali interests.

BIG: SUNY, Cincinnati

While most people say it will be UB, I'm leaving the option open that there might be another SUNY better positioned for this spot. I'm not really sure. After this though, the B1G is really out of acceptable options IMO, unless the Irish come calling. Thus they bite the bullet and add the Bearcats.

ACC: Temple, TCU

With the 2 and 3 schools in FL, I think the ACC would chose to strengthen its Western Front as well as solidify its position in the NE.
10-14-2013 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Phlipper33 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Texas A&M
Location: Arlington, TX
Post: #344
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I don't think the Big 12 goes away either, but OU going to SEC would be a good fit. Don't think OU could leave without OSU and I don't think SEC would take two Oklahoma schools though, so I still think that's a long shot.

A&M obviously wouldn't want Texas to join the SEC, and likewise Texas doesn't want to be seen as following A&M.

If a second Texas school were to ever join the SEC, my money would be on Texas Tech. I don't see the private schools TCU, SMU or Baylor as SEC type schools. Tech would make the most sense of any other public school, but I really don't see the SEC adding anybody else in Texas in the foreseeable future.

Kansas would be an interesting possibility, improving basketball and academics, but of course their football has not been very good. I'm not sure Kansas would be added without Oklahoma though.

If the SEC were to expand to 16 or beyond, I stil think the most likely expansion targets are in North Carolina and Virginia. West Virginia only if beyond 16. I really don't see any expansion in the next 10 years or so though. When the ACC Grant of Rights is nearing its end we could see some action then. Only other way is if Mizzou decides to leave for the Big 10, but I really don't think they would do that. If Mizzou did leave, I could see West Virginia getting the replacement, I've heard some rumors they're not as tied to the Big 12's GOR because they are so far away.

IF ECU can consistently win 10 games over the next decade, and improve on their academic ranking, they could be the North Carolina representative in the SEC. Still a long shot though. My first choice would be a Virginia Tech - NC State combo.
10-14-2013 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,198
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7914
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #345
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 10:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 10:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

We are complete agreement on this. Right now the most perfect expansion possible is OU & UT, and if Aggie is inconsolable, OU & KU.

I've laid out on numerous occasions why I think that the Arkansas add was a bridge to Texas in 1992 and why A&M & Mizzou were terrific in their own right, but also made OU have to consider a more natural fit with the SEC should the Big 12 blow up. Obviously North Carolina and Virginia would be a major coup. I just think it becomes easier to get North Carolina and Virginia if you already have Texas and Oklahoma.

The home run scenario is to add those last 4 and break into 3 balanced, regional divisions of 6 each and have 3 divisional champs and the remaining team with the best record to comprise the conference championship playoff with one game in the West for exposure and one game in the East with the CCG staying in Atlanta, or alternating between Atlanta and Dallas.

But, Vandiver's presentation has merit for 1 very big reason. If any conference lands both Texas and OU the other's are not going to cooperate to absorb the Big 12 remnants so that one walks away with the jewels. So compromise might lead to something like he has listed.

The dissolution of the Big 12 adds that share of the playoff revenue back to the portions received by the other 4 conferences. That's going to be a little over a million per team for the remaining conferences. That's a pretty good reason to cooperate more than would normally be expected.

I'm not sold on the Big12 going the way of the dodo. That's to say that even if there is a change I don't think those programs find their way to the SEC.

College football fans love their regional identity and throwing those traditional powers into the SEC is unlikely to satisfy their fans, or ours.

That's the bow of a greater argument against super conferences in general I suppose.

I understand that aspect of the argument as well. But we have a network to feed now and that is part of the super conference dna. If you accept that outside of a few original conference schools that the SEC is about Flagship state schools who are preferably AAU and from a new market then our expansion list to 16 is rather brief: Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia (Oklahoma excepted on AAU). If you are talking about AAU state flagship schools who add profitability you can add Texas.

If you want a solid cultural fit then the answer is none of them. If you want a general cultural fit then throw out Kansas.

Sixteen is going to be necessary for the coming structural changes designed to enhance revenue. So if our options are realistically Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and an outside possibility of Duke with U.N.C. then you are down to cases on which conference can be poached. I don't think the ACC can be poached before the D4 is determined. I do think for the sake of structure and profitability that the elimination of the Big 12 will be essential. Maybe not at this time, but at sometime down the road.

Then there is the matter of overcoming scheduling issues within the SEC. If you are considering the difficulties of this quagmire Texas and Oklahoma make more sense than North Carolina and Virginia. With two more additions from the West the division will break down more along the lines of the L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools with the newbies and the heart of the Old SEC in the East with their traditional rivals (save S.Car.).

It really can't be argued that if the SEC had both Texas and A&M that a state of 26 million would be owned by the SEC outright no matter where the other Texas schools wind up. With Oklahoma the SEC has the RRSO, and the restoration of the Horns and Aggies, plus all of the content matches between those two and Arkansas and L.S.U. and Missouri.

If the West is broken into two pods and the East into two pods then you could rotate a West divisional playoff game between Kansas City, New Orleans, and Dallas, and rotate the East games between Charlotte, Atlanta, or Jacksonville. The exposure, the revenue generated by the two additional conference championship games, and the additional content would be huge for revenue.

The drawback to Texas and Oklahoma would be the perceived lack of strength added to hoops.

As far as adding two strong brands to a conference swollen with strong brands all I can say is that the path to the playoffs would be no harder than before. Win your division and you are in. The conference champions of the 4 surviving conferences will eventually play it off. So winning your division puts your destiny in your own hands.

But I totally understand your viewpoint and have held that viewpoint myself before. I just think the paradigm has shifted significantly.

All great points.

I just feel that we are starting to reach the point where conference realignment will have a deleterious effect on the long term health of the game and the conferences. When historical games start to get broken up interest will decline for many. It's the death of the pageantry and I think that's a cornerstone of the game in the minds of a large portion of the fans.

There is also a disconnect for fans. Say OU and UT join the SEC, will the Red-River Rivalry be a true SEC event in anything but name? It's all a guess but I think the pursuit of viewers and fans is going to start to erode the base when the brand name starts to separate from its own essence and classic match ups are replaced for a viewing audience outside the core.

I think we are looking at the same tea leaves and reading them differently. Television has already eroded the pageantry and traditions. It started with selling tickets with no kickoff time printed on them. It continued with forcing L.S.U. (e.g.) to play day games and Auburn and Alabama to tee it up at 11:00 for some OOC games. Then came Thursday and Friday nights when work and family obligations to children kept you away from your games. Initially we gave up regional games to help networks maximize market appeal so we got L.S.U. vs Oregon, Auburn vs West Virginia, and Alabama vs Michigan. I miss Southern Miss and La Tech quite frankly.

So I guess what I'm saying is that nothing is going to save that now and it's been dying now for a couple of decades, just by small cuts instead of all in one thrust. So I see realignment (if handled properly) as being a way to reestablish some of the pageantry and tradition.

I've been an advocate of 3 divisions of 6. I think having 5 divisional games provides a much more stable base for scheduling and establishing rivalries than 3. I think it makes for a more regional feel than 16, and for a truer divisional champion. Games like the RRSO would still have the feel of the Western Division if it were comprised of Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. It would still be quite the regional event. In a conference of just 16 with 3 divisional opponents then not so much.

I have called realignment a hostile takeover of an undervalued product. Such events in business always liquidate the lesser assets and maximize the top products by marketing them together. ESPN is selling off rights to games they don't want and both of the cable networks would like to package the best product together. So our conferences get paid to consolidate power. It is what it is.

Given that Texas and Oklahoma make us more money. After the D4 grouping is decided an SEC with Texas and Oklahoma will be in a much better position to lure Virginia and U.N.C. Once all of UVa's and U.N.C.'s old conference mates are safely secured in the new upper division (particularly Wake Forest) then I think movement becomes possible. Who would be their peers then? Notre Dame and Duke, both of which could still wind up in other conferences, or even this one (a big stretch here).
And with all initial payouts to D4 schools starting relatively in the same range and coupled with the elimination of the devaluing of a teams value should they not make the D4, the GOR all of the sudden doesn't have inescapable jaws which are set to take a large economic bite out of the departing. If income is the same and the threat of diminishing value gone then the GOR becomes a relatively cheap exit fee, especially if the same network holds the contracts on the two conferences involved, and it does.

But this is a roller coaster moment. We've been cranked to the top of the highest hill and the big drop is before us. We can either hold up our hands and scream like hell and derive some sense of pleasure, or we can puke all over ourselves. But either way we are not getting off and the cars are not going to go backwards to take us back to the start.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2013 11:27 AM by JRsec.)
10-14-2013 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #346
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 11:02 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 09:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 07:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Longhorns will call, I think Luck stays at WVU. But whoever is the next Texas AD, conference realignment will be the number 3 priority right after finding and new FB coach and fixing the rest of the Athletic Department. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the B12 as constituted, lacks the necessary pieces the appease the other P4 sufficiently. That's why I really like your idea of VT and NCSU to the SEC. I actually think to work for all parties, Mizzou to the B10 must be on the table as well.

SEC:
Lose - Mizzou
Add - WVU, NCSU, VT

ACC:
Lose - NCSU, VT
Add - Texas, Baylor, OKST, KSU

B1G:
Add - Mizzou, UConn

PAC:
Add - OU, TT, KU, ISU

Realignment takes a temporary hold at this point to renegotiate with FOX/ESPN as well as Gage the fan backlash from this shuffle. After reading the tea leaves, the 4 conferences decide to go to 18 with a minimum payout of $23 million for all P4 teams. This is where TCU and Cincinnati get invited back to the party.

I can play along with that scenario, but who would you choose as #17 & #18 for each conference. The reason I ask is because if for instance I was the PAC commissioner I could rest fairly well assured that Nevada or New Mexico, or San Diego State would be there if I wanted them.

In the East it's a whole different matter. Who I take at #15 & #16 would be must takes. Who I take at #17 & #18 would be those that either brought in niche markets or met another need, like academics or AAU affiliation for the SECU.

For instance does the SEC show interest in another Texas school that really wouldn't threaten A&M as 10th has suggested, and would the SEC expand into an Ohio Market with someone like Cincinnati. In your scenario ECU wouldn't be a necessary reach with N.C. State on hand.

I think T.C.U. in your scenario is still available and might make a decent 17 or 18 for the SEC since the bring the DFW market. Cincinnati is competitive in all the major sports and gives you a niche market you don't have in a large state. Personally I would favor T.C.U. in this scenario but would be split over the Cincinnati question. At some point we might want a Gulf coast Florida school like USF.

IMO, picks 17 and 18 are strictly appeasement/scheduling additions due to the lack of AAU additions and the need to keep Congress at bay. In this scenario, ECU retains the same outside chance that it currently has today.

SEC: SMU, UCF

With regard to an additional team in TX, the crux is not A&M but the rest of the teams in the SEC West. Adding TCU/SMU would not be considered a threat by anyone but the Aggies. While I don't like saturating the FL market, I believe adding UCF would easily tie/displace Miami as the #3 school in the state if given the resources.

PAC: UNLV, UNM

For the PAC, I've always thought that it would be one of the 2 Nevada (UNV or UNLV for its market) schools along with UNM. I can't really see how SDSU get past the controlling Cali interests.

BIG: SUNY, Cincinnati

While most people say it will be UB, I'm leaving the option open that there might be another SUNY better positioned for this spot. I'm not really sure. After this though, the B1G is really out of acceptable options IMO, unless the Irish come calling. Thus they bite the bullet and add the Bearcats.

ACC: Temple, TCU

With the 2 and 3 schools in FL, I think the ACC would chose to strengthen its Western Front as well as solidify its position in the NE.
Mizzou is not leaving the SEC. Sorry Vandiver... We have drank the kool aid and it tastes really good.04-cheers
10-14-2013 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #347
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Medic,

My post was simply a mental exercise to highlight the difficulty of parting the P12 and that there isn't enough value to appease all the interests. It is why I think the conference will continue to soldier on. Though I do think it would be interesting to see if it could be pulled off. We are talking about 7 representatives that couldn't get together at a Olive Garden without twitter crashing. #failwhale

BTW, I know Mizzou fans love the SEC and I'm happy to have the MTigers in the conference, but I think even you would admit that the administration would look favorably at a B1G invite. I doubt there would the sort of backlash like the kind that erupted in College Station from such a move.
10-14-2013 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #348
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 12:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Medic,

My post was simply a mental exercise to highlight the difficulty of parting the P12 and that there isn't enough value to appease all the interests. It is why I think the conference will continue to soldier on. Though I do think it would be interesting to see if it could be pulled off. We are talking about 7 representatives that couldn't get together at a Olive Garden without twitter crashing. #failwhale

BTW, I know Mizzou fans love the SEC and I'm happy to have the MTigers in the conference, but I think even you would admit that the administration would look favorably at a B1G invite. I doubt there would the sort of backlash like the kind that erupted in College Station from such a move.

I know. I just think that administration at Missouri would lose all credibility if they pulled something like this. As everyone always states here... there has to be an upside to a move of this magnitude, and I see no significant improvement in a move to the B1G, other than academics, which we are helping to improve in the SEC anyway. I cannot believe the administration is not holding a little grudge against the B1G for treating Missouri like a can of tomato soup on a shelf that they could buy any time they wish. Smart educated people still hold grudges.
(This post was last modified: 10-14-2013 01:08 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
10-14-2013 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,198
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7914
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #349
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 12:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Medic,

My post was simply a mental exercise to highlight the difficulty of parting the P12 and that there isn't enough value to appease all the interests. It is why I think the conference will continue to soldier on. Though I do think it would be interesting to see if it could be pulled off. We are talking about 7 representatives that couldn't get together at a Olive Garden without twitter crashing. #failwhale

BTW, I know Mizzou fans love the SEC and I'm happy to have the MTigers in the conference, but I think even you would admit that the administration would look favorably at a B1G invite. I doubt there would the sort of backlash like the kind that erupted in College Station from such a move.

Everyone knows I'm interested in expansion, but most have not figured out why even though I've published it many times. To me it has all been one of the canaries in the coal mine for the U.S. Economy and the impact that corporate America is having on all aspects of the common man's life. There is literally no sacred areas that are left secure from the molesting hands of the conglomerates. I felt that college football, something I loved which had by and large remained constant for decades throughout my life, was the perfect microcosm for others to understand what is really going on in the much more intricate and confusing larger picture.

Here we deal with one aspect of our lives where loyalties have been fairly straight forward, ties and allegiances have lasted longer than most marriages, and where generations of a family might have held relationships of much longer duration than just 1 lifetime. If the corporate entities could spot an undervalued product (mostly due to its lack of organization and therefore its lack of a larger perspective from which to plan strategically and maximize leverage) and swoop in to alter it in ways that fundamentally changed the way in which millions of Americans related to it, would that be enough to awaken and galvanize a sleeping majority into some form of reform aimed at curtailing the growing power that those entities are garnering over every aspect of our lives? But, hell's bells, I thought the passage of permission for corporate drones to spy on our society might grab the outrage, but crickets are all I hear. And, I hear crickets on the rape of college football, on our privacy, on every issue. What has happened to me is that I have lost any hope I may have had that our people would awaken to hold on to things they once cherished.

I should have known better. This is a generation of latch key children, absentee fathers, broken homes, and single parent family units who are now coming of age. And they care. It's just that they care only to deal with the crises in their own lives and don't have time for the bigger picture issues, so crickets. Destroy the family and you destroy community. Destroy community and you destroy regionalism. Destroy regionalism and you destroy cohesion all together. And when societal cohesion is gone then no matter how small the controllers are in number they still seem to be too much for the common isolated citizen to overcome.

We don't fight for anything any longer except our own individual issues, which of course means we the people have lost our voice and our power. So is it any wonder Wall Street cheats run ruff shod over the rest of us, annuitize our retirement plans in order to steal our principal, charge us fees to use our money, throw up road blocks when we want to access our money, and then buy more regulations to require us to keep even more of our personal wealth with them?

So when volatile rivalries like Nebraska / Oklahoma, Texas / Texas A&M, Missouri / Kansas go by the wayside in order to enhance the corporate bottom line and we buy into it, instead of raise hell, we get what we deserve.

What has been established with realignment is that the fans only vote one way, with their feet. The more alienated and powerless they feel that their voice is in these matters the more empty seats we'll see. After all it was only their love of their schools and the game that kept them there after 2008 anyway because the tickets, travel, and lodging were too expensive for most. As they feel more disenfranchised the less attendance we will have. It was the feeling that they were a part of something larger than themselves that had them there in the first place. So, tell them on one hand that their feelings about it all doesn't make a difference, and then insult them further by going up on the cost of tickets, and you get the silent majority speaking only with their absence.

So we are going to get further consolidation. And future changes will be geared toward enhancing viewership. Who wins and loses will become secondary to amount of money earned. Listen to the ADs and Commissioners speak. I'd say outcome is already secondary to earnings.

As a history and political science guy who studied sociology as well, watching realignment with detailed interest is turning into one of the most revealing social experiments I've seen in my lifetime and it's not pretty folks.

My only hope in all this is that things will remain static for a few decades when this is over and that our children and grandchildren will be able to find new meaning, new social connections, and new rivals, all with enjoyment, in their days ahead. They are going to need great distractions as we have solved few problems, kicked most of our cans down the road, and left precious little for those coming after us. Greed has trumped stewardship of cultural icons, the environment, and the inheritances we should have been leaving in at least as good a shape as that which we received from our parents. JR
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2013 11:04 PM by JRsec.)
10-14-2013 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #350
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-14-2013 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-14-2013 12:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Medic,

My post was simply a mental exercise to highlight the difficulty of parting the P12 and that there isn't enough value to appease all the interests. It is why I think the conference will continue to soldier on. Though I do think it would be interesting to see if it could be pulled off. We are talking about 7 representatives that couldn't get together at a Olive Garden without twitter crashing. #failwhale

BTW, I know Mizzou fans love the SEC and I'm happy to have the MTigers in the conference, but I think even you would admit that the administration would look favorably at a B1G invite. I doubt there would the sort of backlash like the kind that erupted in College Station from such a move.

Everyone knows I'm interested in expansion, but most have not figured out why even though I've published it many times. To me it has all been one of the canaries in the coal mine for the U.S. Economy and the impact that corporate America is having on all aspects of the common man's life. There is literally no sacred areas that are left secure from the molesting hands of the conglomerates. I felt that college football, something I loved which had by and large remained constant for decades throughout my life, was the perfect microcosm for others to understand what is really going on in the much more intricate and confusing larger picture.

Here we deal with one aspect of our lives where loyalties have been fairly straight forward, ties and allegiances have lasted longer than most marriages, and where generations of a family might have held relationships of much longer duration than just 1 lifetime. If the corporate entities could spot an undervalued product (mostly due to its lack or organization and therefore its lack of a larger perspective from which to plan strategically and maximize leverage) and swoop in to alter it in ways that fundamentally changed the way in which millions of Americans related to it, would that be enough to awaken and galvanize a sleeping majority into some form of reform aimed at curtailing the growing power that those entities are garnering over every aspect of our lives? But, hell's bells, I thought the passage of permission for corporate drones to spy on our society might grab the outrage, but crickets are all I hear. And, I hear crickets on the rape of college football, on our privacy, on every issue. What has happened to me is that I have lost any hope I may have had that our people would awaken to hold on to things they once cherished.

I should have known better. This is generation of latch key children, absentee fathers, broken homes, and single parent family units who are now coming of age. And they care. It's just that they care only to deal with the crises in their own lives and don't have time for the bigger picture issues, so crickets. Destroy the family and you destroy community. Destroy community and you destroy regionalism. Destroy regionalism and you destroy cohesion all together. And when societal cohesion is gone then no matter how small the controllers are in number they still seem insurmountable to overcome for the common isolated citizen to deal with.

We don't fight for anything any longer except our own individual issues, which of course means we the people have lost our voice and our power. So is it any wonder Wall Street cheats run ruff shod over the rest of us, annuitize our retirement plans in order to steal our principal, charge us fees to use our money, throw up road blocks when we want to access our money, and then buy more regulations to require us to keep even more of our personal wealth with them?

So when volatile rivalries like Nebraska / Oklahoma, Texas / Texas A&M, Missouri / Kansas go by the wayside in order to enhance the corporate bottom line and we buy into it, instead of raise hell, we get what we deserve.

What has been established with realignment is that the fans only vote one way, with their feet. The more alienated and powerless they feel that their voice is in these matters the more empty seats we'll see. After all it was only their love of their schools and the game that kept them there after 2008 anyway because the tickets, travel, and lodging were too expensive for most. As the feel more disenfranchised the less attendance we will have. It was feeling like they were a part of something larger than themselves that had them there in the first place. Tell them on one hand that their feelings about it all doesn't make a difference and then insult them further by going up on the cost of tickets and you get the silent majority speaking only with their absence.

So we are going to get further consolidation. And future changes will be geared toward enhancing viewership. Who wins and loses will become secondary to amount of money earned. Listen to the AD's and Commissioners speak. I'd say outcome is already secondary to earnings.

As a history and political science guy who studied sociology as well watching realignment with detailed interest is turning into one of the most revealing social experiments I've seen in my lifetime and it's not pretty folks.

My only hope in all this is that things will remain static for a few decades when this is over and that our children and grandchildren will be able to find new meaning, new social connections, and new rivals all with enjoyment in their days ahead. They are going to need great distractions as we have solved few problems, kicked most of our cans down the road, and left precious little for those coming after us. Greed has trumped stewardship of cultural icons, the environment, and the inheritances we should have been leaving in at least as good a shape as that we received from our parents. JR
Excellent read Jr.04-cheers
10-14-2013 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #351
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Great post as usual JR.
10-14-2013 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #352
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
We are so similar and yet so very opposite in nature all at the same time JR. Nice post.
10-16-2013 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,369
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 785
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #353
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Jr you never cease to amaze me.
10-16-2013 08:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,198
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7914
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #354
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
03-thumbsup03-thumbsup

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2013 09:58 PM by JRsec.)
10-22-2013 09:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #355
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-22-2013 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  03-thumbsup03-thumbsup

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!

03-lmfao

I knew it.
10-22-2013 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,198
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7914
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #356
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-22-2013 10:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(10-22-2013 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  03-thumbsup03-thumbsup

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!

03-lmfao

I knew it.

I thought you might like that one. Given the current situation the thread needed a bump post.
10-22-2013 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #357
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-22-2013 10:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-22-2013 10:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(10-22-2013 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  03-thumbsup03-thumbsup

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!

03-lmfao

I knew it.

I thought you might like that one. Given the current situation the thread needed a bump post.

Hey, it's the SEC forum. I am the guest here so I'm just having fun with it as I know you are.

I won't break out my delusional big ten tinted glasses here. 03-lmfao
10-22-2013 11:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #358
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
But you should H1, they are what keep this party going.
10-23-2013 07:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,369
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 785
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #359
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-22-2013 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  03-thumbsup03-thumbsup

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!

WHOA!!
Hold it right there JR.
Why does the SEC get Baylor?
10-23-2013 07:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #360
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Baylor would be a great add, Cincinnati not so much. Houston would be a better add than Cinccy.
10-23-2013 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.