(02-18-2018 08:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 01:35 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-14-2018 08:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now back to the above explanation, it is why I've always favored finding someway to just add Florida State and Clemson and call it a day. They are here. They are like us in every way, they go to church and work with us, and to lack for an original response, "They just mean more!"

Yeah, it would be nice but I don't think they are interested. Moreover, those are mortal blows to the ACC.

(02-14-2018 09:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  But they just don't want to join your league.............

the SEC needs West Virginia and Louisville

You know good and well the SEC doesn't have any needs that either one of those schools fulfill. The conference can thrive at 14, 15 or even 16.

You are absolutely correct. The SEC does not need to expand.
BUT the weakest flank of the SEC is to the north (Kentucky and Missouri) because they protrude out of your defined space and into somewhere else.
Culturally there is no where that you can go to support Missouri except to the southwest and then there is only a tiny border with Oklahoma. You won't find anything close to SEC culture in Illinois, Kansas or Iowa.
Kentucky is a different situation. While I think that redundancy is not ideal in realignment today, it does strengthen Kentucky's (the state) strength in the region and helps but helps define and expand the SEC's reach up and down the Ohio River Valley. West Virginia is just an extension of Kentucky on the SEC side of the mountains that has a shared Appalachian culture.
To me Louisville and West Virginia are the two best cultural fits for the SEC, unfortunately for all parties involved, they are not the most profitable.

Lance,

A) You probably need to study a little Missouri and Kentucky history.

B) West Virginia is not in the southeast and chose not to be southern a long time ago.

C) Texas A&M is not located in the southeast, but they had Southern political leanings, as did Missouri and Kentucky.

There are geographical conference mates and there are also cultural/historical conference mates. When you cross the Mississippi River from Tennessee and Kentucky into Missouri, does that create an epic cultural change?

We can argue this issue forever.

Cultural tends to follow nature, which is along latitudinal lines, but like nature we find changes in linear continuity when there is interruption due to natural barriers like mountains, or non fordable rivers, like the Mississippi.

Several large bridges keep us as close as southern cousins Trust me, the folks are the same on both sides, Lance.

(02-22-2018 10:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 09:50 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I see the logic, but it would be much easier to accomplish by keeping Missouri and simply adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the SEC. You guys could pick up Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas and Iowa State and keep N.D. indy.

But, JR, you know as well as I, that Texas isn't going to join the SEC.

Sure they will. They will find an excuse to do so and that excuse will be Texas Tech. It's really the only move that makes sense for them. The renew old rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M thereby pleasing alums, they keep the two Okies on the schedule and still have Missouri.

The move truly fits their minor sports and their key #2 &#3 money makers, hoops and baseball. And the travel is better and it is one place where their joining would give them more revenue overall.

It's just that it whizzes in the cornflakes of other hopefuls like the PAC, B1G, and ACC.

If the SEC lands the four Texa-homa schools well have no more additions. We'll have all the money we need, within a well defined geographical region, and outside of F.S.U.and Clemson will have the best overall fit from our additions. All the SEC need do is to provide UT with an out from there having said never and being a martyr to save Tech could be that out.

And the academic stuff is just so much smoke. They've dwelt with worse for some years now and academic standing isn't the purview of athletic conferences anyway. They'll be able to partner research with anyone they choose no matter conferene affiliation.

My one argument against this is the resulting "no further moves."

If the ACC is unpoachable, great. Grab Iowa State and Kansas too
But if there is a chance to grab ACC schools later, the SEC won't box itself in.

Honest question: given either a content or market model, which is worth more:

Texas/Tech and OK/State
Or
Just OK/State now/ 2-4 ACC schools later (my "pet" schools: UNC/Clemson)

Honestly the averages of the two are almost identical, so either pair to 16, but both pairs puts the SEC in an unreachable position. That's why I said we would never have to expand again. By saying that I didn't mean that we would exclude a chance to land Virginia Tech, a North Carolina school, Clemson or Florida State if they ever became available, but rather to say those 4 would put us in a position where no other conference could equal or exceed our earnings. And that's a nice place to be.

From a scheduling point of view 24 is about as many as a conference can have and still play everyone within a 4 year span. So if we are sitting at 18 and wanted to add a fourth division of 6 from the ACC it's still workable.

Completely fair. I was thinking 20 as a Max but 24 gives us enough space.

8 games: 3 rivals rotate 5 every 4 years

What would 9 games look like?

(02-22-2018 11:49 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 10:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 09:50 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  But, JR, you know as well as I, that Texas isn't going to join the SEC.

Sure they will. They will find an excuse to do so and that excuse will be Texas Tech. It's really the only move that makes sense for them. The renew old rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M thereby pleasing alums, they keep the two Okies on the schedule and still have Missouri.

The move truly fits their minor sports and their key #2 &#3 money makers, hoops and baseball. And the travel is better and it is one place where their joining would give them more revenue overall.

It's just that it whizzes in the cornflakes of other hopefuls like the PAC, B1G, and ACC.

If the SEC lands the four Texa-homa schools well have no more additions. We'll have all the money we need, within a well defined geographical region, and outside of F.S.U.and Clemson will have the best overall fit from our additions. All the SEC need do is to provide UT with an out from there having said never and being a martyr to save Tech could be that out.

And the academic stuff is just so much smoke. They've dwelt with worse for some years now and academic standing isn't the purview of athletic conferences anyway. They'll be able to partner research with anyone they choose no matter conferene affiliation.

My one argument against this is the resulting "no further moves."

If the ACC is unpoachable, great. Grab Iowa State and Kansas too
But if there is a chance to grab ACC schools later, the SEC won't box itself in.

Honest question: given either a content or market model, which is worth more:

Texas/Tech and OK/State
Or
Just OK/State now/ 2-4 ACC schools later (my "pet" schools: UNC/Clemson)

Honestly the averages of the two are almost identical, so either pair to 16, but both pairs puts the SEC in an unreachable position. That's why I said we would never have to expand again. By saying that I didn't mean that we would exclude a chance to land Virginia Tech, a North Carolina school, Clemson or Florida State if they ever became available, but rather to say those 4 would put us in a position where no other conference could equal or exceed our earnings. And that's a nice place to be.

From a scheduling point of view 24 is about as many as a conference can have and still play everyone within a 4 year span. So if we are sitting at 18 and wanted to add a fourth division of 6 from the ACC it's still workable.

Completely fair. I was thinking 20 as a Max but 24 gives us enough space.

8 games: 3 rivals rotate 5 every 4 years

What would 9 games look like?

Well if divisional play was required you would have to group your rivals inside a division and play eleven conference games (which wouldn't be an issue if there were only 2 or 3 P conferences) and rotate the 6 from each of the other 3 divisions every year. That way you play all 24 every 3 years. You keep 1 OOC game for a rival in another conference.

But if divisionless scheduling was possible you'd play 4 rivals and rotate the other 5 games.

You would have conference semi finals and finals with the champs in and depending upon whether there were 2 or 3 P conferences you would have champs only in with an at large available to the best from the rest.

Most schedules make the fans happier if they are roughly regional so it would be great for the regular season. The networks would get coverage over a wider area by the semis for the conferences and then again by the semis nationally.

Maybe something like this at 24:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Those are your money schools from the ACC.

Then you could form a nice conference out of the remnants:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Temple

Georgia Tech, Louisville, N.C. State, Miami, Wake Forest, West Virginia

Baylor, Colorado State, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State


And the Big 10/PAC:

Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

I have to say, I'm an advocate of 20 or 16 rather than 18. The number 18 is good for a lot of different reasons, but I could see issues creating a 3 division setup.

(02-22-2018 10:18 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 01:35 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Yeah, it would be nice but I don't think they are interested. Moreover, those are mortal blows to the ACC.


You know good and well the SEC doesn't have any needs that either one of those schools fulfill. The conference can thrive at 14, 15 or even 16.

You are absolutely correct. The SEC does not need to expand.
BUT the weakest flank of the SEC is to the north (Kentucky and Missouri) because they protrude out of your defined space and into somewhere else.
Culturally there is no where that you can go to support Missouri except to the southwest and then there is only a tiny border with Oklahoma. You won't find anything close to SEC culture in Illinois, Kansas or Iowa.
Kentucky is a different situation. While I think that redundancy is not ideal in realignment today, it does strengthen Kentucky's (the state) strength in the region and helps but helps define and expand the SEC's reach up and down the Ohio River Valley. West Virginia is just an extension of Kentucky on the SEC side of the mountains that has a shared Appalachian culture.
To me Louisville and West Virginia are the two best cultural fits for the SEC, unfortunately for all parties involved, they are not the most profitable.

Lance,

A) You probably need to study a little Missouri and Kentucky history.

B) West Virginia is not in the southeast and chose not to be southern a long time ago.

C) Texas A&M is not located in the southeast, but they had Southern political leanings, as did Missouri and Kentucky.

There are geographical conference mates and there are also cultural/historical conference mates. When you cross the Mississippi River from Tennessee and Kentucky into Missouri, does that create an epic cultural change?

We can argue this issue forever.

Cultural tends to follow nature, which is along latitudinal lines, but like nature we find changes in linear continuity when there is interruption due to natural barriers like mountains, or non fordable rivers, like the Mississippi.

Several large bridges keep us as close as southern cousins Trust me, the folks are the same on both sides, Lance.

Medic, you can argue that point with Jared Diamond.

(02-22-2018 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.


Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

I see the logic, but it would be much easier to accomplish by keeping Missouri and simply adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the SEC. You guys could pick up Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas and Iowa State and keep N.D. indy.

But, JR, you know as well as I, that Texas isn't going to join the SEC.

Sure they will. They will find an excuse to do so and that excuse will be Texas Tech. It's really the only move that makes sense for them. The renew old rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M thereby pleasing alums, they keep the two Okies on the schedule and still have Missouri.

The move truly fits their minor sports and their key #2 &#3 money makers, hoops and baseball. And the travel is better and it is one place where their joining would give them more revenue overall.

It's just that it whizzes in the cornflakes of other hopefuls like the PAC, B1G, and ACC.

If the SEC lands the four Texa-homa schools well have no more additions. We'll have all the money we need, within a well defined geographical region, and outside of F.S.U.and Clemson will have the best overall fit from our additions. All the SEC need do is to provide UT with an out from there having said never and being a martyr to save Tech could be that out.

And the academic stuff is just so much smoke. They've dwelt with worse for some years now and academic standing isn't the purview of athletic conferences anyway. They'll be able to partner research with anyone they choose no matter conferene affiliation.

Jr, I would say that Texas would like a schedule filled with the likes of Baylor, SMU, TCU, Rice, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and A&M, and to a lesser extent Tulane, Houston and maybe Missouri.
That group isn't going to form as a conference again.
Short of going independent, the best way to schedule most of those teams is to become a partial of the ACC and play a minimum of 8 games a year in the state of Texas.
Texas has recently shown and future scheduling shows that they want to have a presence in Florida, too.
So if the Longhorns and Aggies continue their "huff", the only real rival the Horns have in the SEC would be Arkansas which could be accommodated in an ACC/SEC matchup like Florida State vs. Florida, and could be followed on the other side with A&M and Baylor or TCU.