+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? (/thread-639096.html)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 10-09-2013 02:12 PM
(10-09-2013 01:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(10-09-2013 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:(10-09-2013 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(10-09-2013 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:(10-09-2013 11:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: UT, Texas, is always a bad move for a conference. Texas helps kill conferences, just ask the old SWC folks and the Big 8 folks if they have a favorable or non favorable opinion of Texas' effect on the conference.
You want somebody from the Big12? Baylor. A respectable academic squad that competes from time to time and has a decent following. TCU, see Baylor.
WVU'S probably isn't a great choice. It would be the worst school academically, which is saying something Mississippi, and add very little on the field as well as on TV.
My two ideal picks for the SEC to get to 16 would be Florida State and Clemson. But it's not happening and it's not due to just markets. The SEC like all major conferences wants to add AAU schools to enhance future cross participation in securing grant revenue from corporations and the federal government. For that reason our primary targets to get to 16 will be Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and possibly Kansas or Duke. In the right circumstances we might consider Georgia Tech again, ....might.
Oklahoma would be acceptable even though not in AAU. But I think an Oklahoma State / Oklahoma pair is not a possibility.
If we expand out of the Big 12, in spite of my past playful speculations, it is going to be Texas and Oklahoma, with a very doubtful Kansas as a dark horse. If we don't get any of those we will wait for another chance to go after a pair from the East.
I'm with you on FSU/Clemson. Neither would make the jump and for their own reasons which I can respect.
Being totally honest I don't see the SEC snagging AAU schools. We'll have to wait and hope that anti-Southern sentiment lapses long enough for them to add LSU to the rolls, especially since they deserve it.
The AAU is a crusty old organization with little, in my opinion, relevance to improving education. All of us, all of our schools, just need to hunker down and commit to improving the role they play. In time, and with the shift of migration down to us, it's only a matter of time before our schools become equally as important and respected.
As for football, there isn't anybody out there right now that adds to the brand in my opinion. The key to our success has been our uniquely Southern identity and adding certain teams, like the Oklahomas, could potentially detract from that. I'm in favour of a slow and steady approach to it.
What we are doing is working, we are the premier football conference and our schools continue to climb the rankings and earn national and worldwide respect, so let's just make sure we have sustained performance and growth and not put greed or excitement in the driver seat.
While I totally agree with your sentiment, if we had wanted F.S.U. and Clemson we could have gotten them a year and a half ago. I was already a gray when the expansion happened in 1992 and at that time I actually knew the commissioner, I'm not saying I traveled in the same circles or was his friend, but I am saying we had family connections (not relations). I goal in 1992 was to land Texas and Texas A&M along with Florida State and Clemson. As Jackie Sheryl pointed out we even talked about moving to 20 way back then by adding Miami and Georgia Tech back to that line up.
While things have changed with the network and market concepts entering into realignment strategies, the things that changed were related to existing markets not needing duplication. That why of the original targets only Texas and Texas A&M remained. We were set to add A&M and Oklahoma two years ago when the Longhorns got their LHN and suddenly were no longer interested in the PAC. Oklahoma backed out to stay with Texas and restructure the Big 12. Missouri entered the picture. New market, AAU, flagship were all the qualities that qualified Missouri. Some might say that now that we have A&M we don't need Texas. I don't think we need them, but if they wanted to join I don't think we would turn down the #1 money maker in college football.
When Kramer was not able to land his four top targets in 1992 he picked up South Carolina which is now completing its transition into a strong regional brand, and we picked up Arkansas to have a gateway to Dallas and the Texas market. A&M solidified that objective nicely. Missouri was a strong business pick up that enhanced the SEC's academic status even though many of our non AAU schools are ranked higher in some scholastic services rankings.
Think about what our moves on the map have done. Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M all expanded our Western boundary. If North Carolina and Virginia are unapproachable in the foreseeable future then how do we complete our expansion model successfully and with the greatest satisfaction to for our existing members?
I submit that what we have intentionally done is pursue the additions to the East while simultaneously and intentionally optimizing our opportunities to acquire the best possible additions to the West. Where else could Oklahoma and Texas move and have a ready made division of their former rivals, enhance an already wealthy conference with their presence, find easy travel for their alumni, and find a better social culture (not necessarily an academic one) than to become members of a Western division of the SEC comprised of Arkansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M.
Making such a move then solves problems for Eastern rivals. Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt then comprise the East and all traditional rivalries are preserved. Both divisions have better balance. There are 3 strong brands in each, two brands that regularly challenge, 1 brand that occasionally challenges, and two regularly weaker teams.
What the SEC is trying to accomplish in expansion is really just two strong programs away from reality. Academic adds, AAU enhancements for the SECU, geographical balance, and content for the networks. Obviously basketball additions would help us more because our football profile is solidly #1. But, foregoing additions in North Carolina or Virginia the ease of scheduling and most of our lofty goals could be obtained by what I've laid out.
I agree with you about branding issues. I very much agree with your assessment of the AAU. Alabama and Georgia might be candidates for the AAU if the medical schools were still on campus. But systems in both states found a better way to concentrate their training for a much needed profession by funneling research dollars to U.A.B. and the Medical College of Georgia respectively. But even though what you say is true the federal research money and the ability to share projects between member schools means we have to respect the old guard clout of the AAU even if we know it for what it is. So don't discount the importance that Florida, who once flirted with leaving the SEC, and Vanderbilt place upon their membership in, and association with, the AAU other schools in that organization. From that respect Missouri and A&M were good first steps to stabilizing our ability to satisfy and hold the two members that we already had. When we can add to the bottom line, enhance our academic standing, make our scheduling much more flexible, keep our traditional rivals safe, and satisfy some of our best schools, I just don't see why we shouldn't do it.
I agree with all of that man.
I'd just add that we've, more or less, reached the limit of our cultural footprint. I think that footprint is the key to our success, as I mentioned. If we are going to expand in the future we need to strike a healthy balance. I'd argue that our cultural footprint is something unique to the S.E.C.. That balance is one part athletic success, one part academic success, and one part culture.
Two fine additions could include VA Tech, which is perhaps only as culturally relevant as Mizzou, and North Carolina State, more so.
I also think we have to be realistic about who and what we are. We are, undoubtedly, the premier athletic conference in terms of the big Football but we are the fourth best academic unit. Our major problem is we don't offer much to schools like UNC, Miami, Duke, and the like. That said, we can in time. The dynamic of higher education is changing and the AAU, while relevant today, is losing much of its esteem in its own overly rigid and nonsensical rules. I don't think I can overemphasize the importance domestic migration will play in those shifts South. The days when one had to choose between sunshine, beautiful women, food, and Southern hospitality, and advanced medical, nuclear, and robotic research are coming to a close.
Overall, the future is very bright for our conference on just about every front. Maybe it's just my conservative nature but I'd like for it to remain true to its roots and what I see as the secret to our success and position we enjoy today.
I think we may still have a 20 school objective. I'll only offer this tease. An SEC with Florida, Texas, Vanderbilt, Missouri, and Texas A&M would become suddenly much more acceptable, convenient, and practical for Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to complete. The SECU would be the second largest association of AAU schools behind that of the Big 10, such a move would check Big 10 expansion South helping to preserve the heritage and culture of our region, the travel would be better for the ACC schools which would assuredly be broken into a regional division, and their earnings would be second to none.
I also believe it is possible that Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Virginia signed grants of rights until the D4 issue is decided to help guarantee their long standing conference mates inclusion in the new system, more than simply to guarantee that they themselves are not moving. Once the D4 is established most television contracts will for an initial period of time be relatively close in value to one another. If contracts are basically equivalent then moving even with a GOR becomes moot. If the conference they leave earns as much without them (at the time of the move) then any real damages for such a move are mitigated. If the other members of the conference do not suffer a loss of status due to the move the real damages are mitigated. It will be the perfect time for such realignment to occur.
I submit that is why the power schools signed the GOR. It doesn't remove the possibility of a move, in fact it enhances it once an upper tier is established and their former conference mates are guaranteed a place in it with a comparable revenue established. Then they are freer than they have been to move for purposes of peer association.
I realize this is speculative, but let's say that Texas and OU help the SEC to land the other 4. The Big 10 has Iowa State, Kansas, Pittsburgh, Connecticut, Buffalo, Boston College, Notre Dame, and Syracuse to choose 6 from.
Then Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., B.Y.U. West Virginia and Cincinnati can be added to Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Miami, and the two remainders of the Big 10's selections for a conference of 16.
While the latter group would get an initial boost in Playoff revenue distribution because of their smaller numbers, the SEC and Big 10 would get a boost from content, markets, and academics. As long as the money is equal at the start and all are included in the upper tier the GOR is essentially satisfied at the conference level, and the nitty gritty would be worked out between the networks involved, which in the case of the ACC and SEC would all be in ESPN's hands.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - oliveandblue - 10-09-2013 02:56 PM
Questions:
What if the new Texas AD takes a pro-expansion stance and looks to rebuild the Big XII (restoring some of UT-Austin's lost power)? What if the additional CCG money covers the "gap" between an expansion target's TV value and the current per team payout being given?
If the Big XII adds 2-4 schools (out of Cincinnati, UH, SMU, UCF, ECU, USF, BYU, and Colorado State) will it usher in a "new era" of stability as most of the valuable TV products will have found a home going forward?
Killing the Big XII is a colossal task.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 10-09-2013 03:32 PM
(10-09-2013 02:56 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: Questions:
What if the new Texas AD takes a pro-expansion stance and looks to rebuild the Big XII (restoring some of UT-Austin's lost power)? What if the additional CCG money covers the "gap" between an expansion target's TV value and the current per team payout being given?
If the Big XII adds 2-4 schools (out of Cincinnati, UH, SMU, UCF, ECU, USF, BYU, and Colorado State) will it usher in a "new era" of stability as most of the valuable TV products will have found a home going forward?
Killing the Big XII is a colossal task.
The answer for your first question is "yes" it would bring more stability. Then if conferences wanted to expand to 16 to enhance their conference championship with a 4 team playoff they would have to consider teams who added new markets with upward potential that other wise might have been considered to be a bit of a "project" for expansion.
I think then schools like UCF, USF, and ECU would get some serious looks.
As to statement that killing the Big 12 is a colossal task, not so much.
It all depends on where Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas want to call home. If they continue not to want to expand then they are definitely looking to move at some point. And you may be misreading the issues around Dodds. He thought about the PAC, and then wanted to keep the Big 12 together to capitalize on the LHN. Replacing him could well be about realignment, just not as you envision it. It could well mean bringing in an AD that will help Texas make a move. If Texas and Oklahoma alumni and boosters are upset over the present slate of schools on their annual schedule then adding UCF or even B.Y.U. or Cincinnati is not going to be their answer. The PAC, SEC, and Big 10 offer much better games to fill their stadiums and energize their fans.
And consider the networks desires here too. Texas vs (Kansas State, Iowa State, Kansas, West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U., and even Oklahoma State) don't bring in anywhere the national interest of Texas Versus Oklahoma. Texas vs Texas Tech is still just a good regional game. Put Texas and Oklahoma in any other P5 conference and what do you get? At least 4 and sometimes as many as 5 national audience games.
Texas vs (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Penn State).
Texas vs (USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma)
Texas vs (Alabama, Texas A&M, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, LSU, and a super regional match in Texas vs Arkansas).
Texas vs (Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and I bet growing interest in Texas vs Louisville).
The net result is that Texas and Oklahoma are worth far more in advertising dollars in any conference other than the present Big 12.
The same is true for Kansas basketball.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bitcruncher - 10-09-2013 04:29 PM
But does Texas want to trade money for the power they enjoy in the B12? That is the big question...
I'm of the opinion that they prefer power over the money, since they're already the most profitable program in college football. Being just another voice in the crowd runs contrary to Texas' long history...
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 04:51 PM
(10-09-2013 04:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: But does Texas want to trade money for the power they enjoy in the B12? That is the big question...
I'm of the opinion that they prefer power over the money, since they're already the most profitable program in college football. Being just another voice in the crowd runs contrary to Texas' long history...
+1
That's why Texas is conference poison.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bitcruncher - 10-09-2013 05:40 PM
(10-09-2013 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Texas A&M had just as much power in the B12. But they had the little brother syndrome, and blamed all their troubles on Texas...(10-09-2013 04:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: But does Texas want to trade money for the power they enjoy in the B12? That is the big question...+1
I'm of the opinion that they prefer power over the money, since they're already the most profitable program in college football. Being just another voice in the crowd runs contrary to Texas' long history...
That's why Texas is conference poison.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 06:23 PM
(10-09-2013 05:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:(10-09-2013 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Texas A&M had just as much power in the B12. But they had the little brother syndrome, and blamed all their troubles on Texas...(10-09-2013 04:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: But does Texas want to trade money for the power they enjoy in the B12? That is the big question...+1
I'm of the opinion that they prefer power over the money, since they're already the most profitable program in college football. Being just another voice in the crowd runs contrary to Texas' long history...
That's why Texas is conference poison.
Unfortunately for Aggies, many seem to still be only interested in comparing themselves to their big brother.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bitcruncher - 10-09-2013 06:55 PM
(10-09-2013 06:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Is that all that surprising?(10-09-2013 05:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:Unfortunately for Aggies, many seem to still be only interested in comparing themselves to their big brother.(10-09-2013 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Texas A&M had just as much power in the B12. But they had the little brother syndrome, and blamed all their troubles on Texas...(10-09-2013 04:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: But does Texas want to trade money for the power they enjoy in the B12? That is the big question...+1
I'm of the opinion that they prefer power over the money, since they're already the most profitable program in college football. Being just another voice in the crowd runs contrary to Texas' long history...
That's why Texas is conference poison.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 07:46 PM
(10-09-2013 06:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:(10-09-2013 06:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Is that all that surprising?(10-09-2013 05:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:Unfortunately for Aggies, many seem to still be only interested in comparing themselves to their big brother.(10-09-2013 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Texas A&M had just as much power in the B12. But they had the little brother syndrome, and blamed all their troubles on Texas...(10-09-2013 04:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: But does Texas want to trade money for the power they enjoy in the B12? That is the big question...+1
I'm of the opinion that they prefer power over the money, since they're already the most profitable program in college football. Being just another voice in the crowd runs contrary to Texas' long history...
That's why Texas is conference poison.
Somewhat. You'd think that stepping out of big brother's shadow would have been just that for them.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bitcruncher - 10-09-2013 08:12 PM
(10-09-2013 07:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Welcome to the real world, dude. Those with an inferiority complex have to have somebody to blame, whether they need a scapegoat or not...(10-09-2013 06:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:Somewhat. You'd think that stepping out of big brother's shadow would have been just that for them.(10-09-2013 06:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Is that all that surprising?(10-09-2013 05:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:Unfortunately for Aggies, many seem to still be only interested in comparing themselves to their big brother.(10-09-2013 04:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: +1Texas A&M had just as much power in the B12. But they had the little brother syndrome, and blamed all their troubles on Texas...
That's why Texas is conference poison.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 08:13 PM
(10-09-2013 08:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:(10-09-2013 07:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Welcome to the real world, dude. Those with an inferiority complex have to have somebody to blame, whether they need a scapegoat or not...(10-09-2013 06:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:Somewhat. You'd think that stepping out of big brother's shadow would have been just that for them.(10-09-2013 06:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:Is that all that surprising?(10-09-2013 05:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: Texas A&M had just as much power in the B12. But they had the little brother syndrome, and blamed all their troubles on Texas...Unfortunately for Aggies, many seem to still be only interested in comparing themselves to their big brother.
True story.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - 10thMountain - 10-09-2013 08:33 PM
Screw your "little brother" BS
UT is deep in our rearview mirror.
Getting away not from UT but from the Big 12... a corn state conference we had no history or connection to and no business joining in the first place but were forced to by politics...was the best thing that's happened to us in a long time.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 08:42 PM
Dude, it's not intended to insult but everybody knows A&M has always measured itself against Texas and even now it continues with much of this 'who came off better' talk.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - 10thMountain - 10-09-2013 08:47 PM
Well there's no question who came off better
Go check shaggy bevo and you'll see they haven't stopped talking about it either and continue to talk about wether it was right or maybe even that they should follow our lead so it's not exactly one sided.
But we've been stuck together for over 100 years and many families are mixed. It's gonna take more than one year for all the hard feelings to get worked out but I promise you, nobody on our side regrets the necessity of getting out of the Big 12 to better ourselves.
Again, it was about leaving the Big 12, not the horns.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 08:51 PM
I'll buy that.
So far, the divorce from Texas/Big12 seems to many on the national stage to be mostly about Texas. The level of excitement over Texas' decline is prove in and of itself of that.
I do think the sticking power of A&M is still questionable but that's something that only time will tell.
The only thing there man, Texas can talk about it all they want; they, unlike A&M didn't have anything to prove. Texas was the dominant program, still, arguably, is.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - 10thMountain - 10-09-2013 08:56 PM
As long as we are only game in town selling the product of "come represent Texas in CFB's greatest conference" to the Texas blue chip recruits, we'll be a force in the SEC.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 09:03 PM
(10-09-2013 08:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote: As long as we are only game in town selling the product of "come represent Texas in CFB's greatest conference" to the Texas blue chip recruits, we'll be a force in the SEC.
It's helped but fact is Texas still has their equal if not better ringer and SEC powers get theirs out of the State as well. A&M has a lot of mediocrity to overcome in the coming decade.
We'll really find out once Johnny Football, who in my opinion is the most electric player in 10 years, leaves.
History isn't on your side, nobody has put it together at A&M, which isn't a football power, before.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bitcruncher - 10-09-2013 09:04 PM
Unless those Texas recruits are overrated, which may be the case considering how good Texas' recruiting classes have been, with such lousy records to show for it...
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - HeartOfDixie - 10-09-2013 09:06 PM
Texas is an underachiever, but so is their little brother.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - 10thMountain - 10-09-2013 09:30 PM
Hey I get it, the last thing you want is another consistent power in the SEC West.
But I wouldn't write us off just yet. We have the #1 QB recruit in the country coming in to replace Johnny so we should be OK.
And Bit,
Texas issue in recruiting is that guys like Geoff Ketchum who run the Texas Rivals recruiting sites and are big UT homers so they would rank players on their school decision rather than ability. If a 4 star kid chose A&M, he got bumped down to a 3 star and if a 3 star chose UT he got bumped to a 4 star.
The result was these vastly overrated classes which then combined with the laziness and entitlement of "you're at UT so you're too good to try and work hard and get better!"