re: Comparing the 2 rounds of SEC expansion

quote:

---

Im sorry Grits, but, if Slive could poach UNC and UVA tomorrow, he would and that would be the end of that "symbiosis"

---

Folks kept thinking the SEC would poach the ACC but they were viewing through their own eyes. Slive is a UVA alum and Skipper is a UNC grad. If say someday it turns out that the SEC was actually supporting the ACC to not get poached, lets just say I will not be surprised in the least.

Old folks who grew up around old southern ways are running things now, not some 30 year old guys who did not grow up in the old era. Totally different ways of doing things and how they think.

You obviously forgetting the pipeline of meth we have enabled the SEC to call theirs.


You aren't trying until you mix meth with whiskey.

quote:

---

I admit I have a lot to learn about the politics going on between the ACC and the SEC.

---

Spend some time around southern bankers and lawyers. They have the hayseed act down while they keep picking the yankee pocket.

Some of it is politics and some of it is just old fashioned business in an age of greed. Youth looks for quick and simple answers with 6 month windows. Older folks have seen it before and tend to look at long term strategic decision making. It is like the old southern farmer planting oak trees so the grandkids have income long after he is dead, even tho he never lives to see the trees mature.

quote:

---

I always thought the ACC was going down before the Big 12 but there may be benefit to propping up the ACC long enough to see the PAC and B1G's hands.

---

It is more than that. There is genuine history between the 2 and they know better to trust your friends than kill them off and suffer long term to your enemies. Again, my gut feeling is ACC is going nowhere as long as the SEC is still standing.

A better view is the PAC and B1G being one group and the ACC and SEC being the other. Both are stronger by supporting their partner and not weakening them. Most of the moves that occurred in 2010 - 2012 were in the works for at least a generation. Maybe not in the public eye, but in conversations back and forth between the folks at the schools.

I really think both the B1G and PAC have coveted TX and are happy if either get them as long as the SEC does not. Personally I will laugh the good laugh if TX follows ND to the ACC and both the B1G and PAC get left out. The B1G damaged the Big 8 / SWC / B12 when they took Iowa early on (only school to be a member of both back in the beginning) and whacked them again with Nebraska.

The 2nd.

But the scheduling is such a shite show now I still wish it wouldn't have happened.

I haven't read the thread but I feel like my opinion has probably been stated already.

The second round will probably bring more ROI I suppose..or I should say, more immediate success in athletics. But I would much rather have just left off after round 1. Someone on page 1 said it forever altered the landscape of cfb and that's true.

quote:

---

...deep ties to the Confederacy...

---

Is that really something to be proud of?

The first round was better for the conference. It helped us change from a regional conference to a national power because of the addition of the SECCG. It wasn't necessarily that the schools were great additions (they were okay), but that it got us to 12.

As for the second round, A&M is the most "valuable" school to add, but as far as football goes, it is something of a train wreck b/c everyone hates the scheduled and now we are stuck with either giving up two games that literally helped build the SEC, living with incredibly bad rotation schedule, or adding another game. It has reduced conference cohesion.

As with a lot of things in life, it is timing. The first round of expansion was much better, but that was largely b/c of circumstances, not b/c of the specific schools involved.