I am disappointed in many of you, my SEC brethren, as I think you fail to see the big picture here.

You have to remember, this is all about money, and although it sounds greedy and unethical, this kind of money would usher the SEC in to what would truly be its golden era.

I've seen some of you say you'd like to add FSU and Clemson over Texas and aTm. Why? Texas's athletic revenue alone is greater than Clemson and FSU's combined. Here are revenues from schools I've seen mentioned along with the top SEC schools for comparison.

Texas 138,459,149
Tennessee 102,795,708
LSU 100,878,633
Alabama 100,302,512
Texas A&M 98,121,411
Florida 96,814,239
Auburn 87,001,413
Oklahoma 81,487,835
Florida State 74,417,324
Clemson 61,416,494
Oklahoma State 55,953,397
South Florida 37,986,171

What can we conclude from this list?

1. Whoever mentioned bringing in USF to the SEC needs to be taken out back and beaten. They would add absolutely nothing as far as image, athletics, academics, or income.

2. Texas and aTm >>>> Clemson and FSU. Look. These schools would bring in massive market share from Texas. No doubt with the addition of these two new institutions, the SEC would be in a mighty position to renegotiate its TV contracts with ESPN and CBS, raking in even more cash. Greater income means better coaching staff, better facilities(stadium expansions anyone?), and more available funding for recruiting leading to better players. Not only that, but it would increase exposure and blow SEC hype through the roof. Poll voters would be brain numb not to put the new SEC's champion in the NCG.

3. If, in order to get Texas and aTm, we need OU and OSU, so be it. Benefits far outweigh the costs.