Started By
Message
re: How long until we go to 16 teams?
Posted on 5/2/12 at 2:52 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 5/2/12 at 2:52 am to Draconian Sanctions
just for fun imagine these scenarios with 16 SEC teams:
Scenario 1 - add one team from Va and NC (Va Tech and NC State)
Pros - Adds two large states with southern identities giving a logical geographic footprint
Cons - none other than expansion
Division1 - LSU, Arky, A&M, Ole Miss
Division2 - Bama, Auburn, MU, MSU
Division3 - Tenn, Va Tech, NC State, Vandy
Division4 - Florida, Georgia, USC, KY
Scenario 2 - Add Texas and OU
Pros - adds two of the most prestigious football programs in the country, still gives a rational footprint
Cons - OU unlikely without Ok State, Texas a problem child that wants to dictate policy instead of share, SEC is already in Texas and Oklahoma is smaller than other states teh SEC could expand into
Division1 - Texas, OU, Arkansas, MSU
Division2 - LSU, A&M, MU, Ole Miss
Division3 - Bama, Auburn, Georgia, KY
Division4 - Florida, Tenn, USC, Vandy
Scenario 3 - the SEC goes Yankee and adds Kansas and Illinois
Pros - Kansas is a great basketball get, Illinois is a monster state and a very strong basketball program, both have natural rivalries with Missouri and the SEC might suddenly be the best basketball conference as well as teh best football conference.
Cons - would this really work? very awkward balancing the needs of balancing football and basketball program strengths when creating the divisions.
Division 1 - LSU, A&M, Arky, Ole Miss
Division 2 - Alabama, Auburn, Kansas, MU
Division 3 - Georgia, Tenn, Illinois, MSU
Division 4 - Florida, USC, KY, Vandy
Scenario 1 - add one team from Va and NC (Va Tech and NC State)
Pros - Adds two large states with southern identities giving a logical geographic footprint
Cons - none other than expansion
Division1 - LSU, Arky, A&M, Ole Miss
Division2 - Bama, Auburn, MU, MSU
Division3 - Tenn, Va Tech, NC State, Vandy
Division4 - Florida, Georgia, USC, KY
Scenario 2 - Add Texas and OU
Pros - adds two of the most prestigious football programs in the country, still gives a rational footprint
Cons - OU unlikely without Ok State, Texas a problem child that wants to dictate policy instead of share, SEC is already in Texas and Oklahoma is smaller than other states teh SEC could expand into
Division1 - Texas, OU, Arkansas, MSU
Division2 - LSU, A&M, MU, Ole Miss
Division3 - Bama, Auburn, Georgia, KY
Division4 - Florida, Tenn, USC, Vandy
Scenario 3 - the SEC goes Yankee and adds Kansas and Illinois
Pros - Kansas is a great basketball get, Illinois is a monster state and a very strong basketball program, both have natural rivalries with Missouri and the SEC might suddenly be the best basketball conference as well as teh best football conference.
Cons - would this really work? very awkward balancing the needs of balancing football and basketball program strengths when creating the divisions.
Division 1 - LSU, A&M, Arky, Ole Miss
Division 2 - Alabama, Auburn, Kansas, MU
Division 3 - Georgia, Tenn, Illinois, MSU
Division 4 - Florida, USC, KY, Vandy
3
Posted on 5/2/12 at 4:20 am to Draconian Sanctions
Sooner than people think.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 5:39 am to molsusports
quote:
Scenario 2 - Add Texas and OU Pros - adds two of the most prestigious football programs in the country, still gives a rational footprint Cons - OU unlikely without Ok State, Texas a problem child that wants to dictate policy instead of share, SEC is already in Texas and Oklahoma is smaller than other states teh SEC could expand into Division1 - Texas, OU, Arkansas, MSU Division2 - LSU, A&M, MU, Ole Miss Division3 - Bama, Auburn, Georgia, KY Division4 - Florida, Tenn, USC, Vandy
Posted on 5/2/12 at 8:36 am to FightTigers
quote:
I honestly think the supposed Mizzou B1G "obsession" is really overplayed on the Rant. I know for a fact that there were multiple million dollar donations to the athletic department that were stipulated on the fact that we were going to the SEC.
The donations weren't pro-sec, they were anti-Big 12. The Mizzou B1G obsession is not overplayed, in fact it is probably understated. Everyone knows you guys were begging for a B1G invite recently but it also happened when the Big 8 became the Big 12:
LINK
quote:
Back on March 8, 1994, the Tribune's Scott Cain wrote ... The University of Missouri-Columbia, which abstained in a Big Eight Conference vote for a merger with four Southwest Conference schools, is drawing criticism about its level of commitment to the expanded league. Nebraska athletic director Bill Byrne said he wished Missouri administrators would make a firm commitment. "From my perspective, I wish they would either make a commitment to us or go somewhere else,'' he said. "But this dilly-dallying has got to stop.'' MU upset other Big Eight schools last year by publicly flirting with the Big Ten. MU chancellor Charles Kiesler walked a fine public relations line at the time, saying in September that it would not be dignified to publicly pressure the Big Ten to admit MU, but that the issue was open for discussion.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 8:46 am to molsusports
quote:
Scenario 2 - Add Texas and OU
Forget it. A&M probably has it's own "gentleman's agreement" with Arkansas and Mizzou (and probably LSU as well) to keep Texas out of the mix. Or some working arrangement with the Florida/Georgia/Tennessee bloc. Or both.
OU can't (and won't) go anywhere without Ok State.
quote:
Scenario 3 - the SEC goes Yankee and adds Kansas and Illinois
Kansas wouldn't be blocked but may have a K-State problem.
Illinois isn't leaving the B1G (nor is anyone else from there).
quote:
Scenario 1 - add one team from Va and NC (Va Tech and NC State)
The most likely scenario (and the one I hope happens). But this would require somebody to destabilize the ACC enough to get the B1G to extend an invite to UVa and UNC (VT won't make the first move), thus freeing up VT and NCST to leave.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 8:53 am to molsusports
quote:
Scenario 1 - add one team from Va and NC (Va Tech and NC State)
VA tech should never be allowed. Not a very committed fan base. Half of the VT fans are Duke and UNC fans in basketball season. If they fall back down to the abyss like there were pre-Beamer, most would prolly just start rooting for Bama or the flavor of the month in footbal
quote:
Scenario 2 - Add Texas and OU
I don't mind OU and OSU, but that's not likely to happen. I don't want TX and their elitist attitude
quote:
Scenario 3 - the SEC goes Yankee and adds Kansas and Illinois
Illinois is just starting to get too far north. Don't mind the KU addition. They certainly add to the basketball brand, and it does give Mizzou their traditional rival
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:00 am to jackmanusc
Fsu had a chance & blew it back years ago. frick them. 
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:09 am to tween the hedges
quote:
I remember reading somewhere that it took 10/12 SEC schools to approve a new member and that UGA, UF, and USC all made a gentlemans agreement not to allow GT, FSU, or CU into the SEC.
Not sure how the fraction would change with 2 new schools though
I suspect Texas A&M would happily join that "gentlemans agreement" and add Texas to the blacklist.
And I thought the rule was that you only needed 8 or 9 (out of 12, not sure how many out of 14), but that Slive said we wouldn't (not "couldn't") add a team if more than two schools voted against it.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:11 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
but that Slive said we wouldn't (not "couldn't") add a team if more than two schools voted against it.
Slive is a lying POS
Posted on 5/2/12 at 10:03 am to bona fide
Hawaii and South Florida.At least some scenery in those places. SEC will expand within 3 years I believe. Would not be surprised if were 2 more from the 4th best conference out there.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 10:16 am to Quidam65
quote:
Forget it. A&M probably has it's own "gentleman's agreement" with Arkansas and Mizzou (and probably LSU as well) to keep Texas out of the mix. Or some working arrangement with the Florida/Georgia/Tennessee bloc. Or both.
Good gawd I hope so. DO.NOT.WANT university of texas!
I would like OU, but you're right, they're likely not going anywhere withou Okie Lite.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 11:29 am to blacknblu
OU and UNC would be my dream adds.
Realistically, NC State and Va Tech are most likely.
Clemson, FSU and Ga Tech are highly unlikely for the previously stated reasons.
Realistically, NC State and Va Tech are most likely.
Clemson, FSU and Ga Tech are highly unlikely for the previously stated reasons.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:10 pm to SwatMitchell
NC State and Va Tech. Sooner than you think.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:21 pm to Nuts4LSU
The SEC Bylaws state the following (copied and pasted from the SEC website):
*3.1.2 Granting of Membership. Membership may be granted by invitation of the Conference at a regular or called meeting. A three-fourths vote of members is required to extend an invitation for membership. [Revised 5/30/91]
So 3/4 of 14 is 10.5, for discussion purposes let's say the number is rounded down to 10. So five "NO" votes would block admission.
If, say, Texas were to apply, it's quite certain A&M would vote against admission. After all it was their dislike of how Texas conducted itself in the Big 12 that was among many factors leading them to break ties.
So who would be the other four "NO" votes?
I think Arkansas and Missouri are strong possibilities, both of them having been in a conference with Texas and knowing what they bring to the table. LSU also has a strong incentive to vote "NO"--they've already weakened their recruiting base in East Texas by voting to allow A&M in, I can't see them weakening it further by allowing Texas in as well.
The fifth? Maybe the Florida/Georgia/South Carolina (and Kentucky?) "block bloc" votes "NO" with the understanding that A&M will support their efforts to keep FSU/Miami/GT/Clemson (and maybe Louisville) out as well.
*3.1.2 Granting of Membership. Membership may be granted by invitation of the Conference at a regular or called meeting. A three-fourths vote of members is required to extend an invitation for membership. [Revised 5/30/91]
So 3/4 of 14 is 10.5, for discussion purposes let's say the number is rounded down to 10. So five "NO" votes would block admission.
If, say, Texas were to apply, it's quite certain A&M would vote against admission. After all it was their dislike of how Texas conducted itself in the Big 12 that was among many factors leading them to break ties.
So who would be the other four "NO" votes?
I think Arkansas and Missouri are strong possibilities, both of them having been in a conference with Texas and knowing what they bring to the table. LSU also has a strong incentive to vote "NO"--they've already weakened their recruiting base in East Texas by voting to allow A&M in, I can't see them weakening it further by allowing Texas in as well.
The fifth? Maybe the Florida/Georgia/South Carolina (and Kentucky?) "block bloc" votes "NO" with the understanding that A&M will support their efforts to keep FSU/Miami/GT/Clemson (and maybe Louisville) out as well.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:27 pm to Quidam65
quote:
. LSU also has a strong incentive to vote "NO"--they've already weakened their recruiting base in East Texas by voting to allow A&M in, I can't see them weakening it further by allowing Texas in as well.
I'm not sure I follow on that
Texas usually gets most of the kids they want from Texas. I don't think that would change whether or not they joined the SEC.
But yeah, I agree Texas is unlikely to ever join the SEC for a whole host of reasons
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:28 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I highly doubt the SEC goes to 16. Once the 4 team playoff works, and expands to 8, whether the NCAA sanctions a playoff or the BCS, is not important, it only creates the effect of the major conference champions automatically qualifying for a national title every year, and expanding to 16 is past the point of diminishing returns. Especially for others trying to join.
The SEC is much more likely to expand to 9 or 10 conference games before the expand the number of teams, imo.
The SEC is much more likely to expand to 9 or 10 conference games before the expand the number of teams, imo.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:33 pm to LegacyAggie
quote:
NC State and Va Tech. Sooner than you think.
So who begins destabilizing the ACC?
The FSU/Clemson (with or without GT/Miami and maybe also VT/Maryland) to the Big 12 rumors are all courtesy of the West Virginia fansites. (I guess all they do up there is start rumors and burn couches.) Every other fansite that has discussed this (TexAgs, BaylorFans, FSU Scout website) has copied the WV Scout website and their "insider information".
Also, can VT pull out of the ACC without causing problems with UVa (who got them in)? Or does UVa have to leave first (say, UVa/UNC to the B1G) thus giving VT the "political cover" to move to the SEC. Is NCST also in a similar quandary--needing UNC to leave first?
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:37 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
The SEC is much more likely to expand to 9 or 10 conference games before the expand the number of teams, imo.
It is hard to see a profit motive for that. With fewer home games you would lose home gate revenue across the board.
If the NCAA were to approve a format where 16 team conferences with 4 divisions could do a two round conference champ playoff then there could be a strong profit motive for the SEC to expand to 16.
If that doesn't happen there's not much obvious advantage to expanding from 14 to 16 - or at the very least any expansion has to be done very selectively because it decreases the percent of the take home for everyone
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:44 pm to molsusports
quote:
I'm not sure I follow on that
Texas usually gets most of the kids they want from Texas. I don't think that would change whether or not they joined the SEC.
Prior to A&M's joining LSU had something to offer players--the chance to play in the SEC yet not be too far from home (their territory is mainly East Texas and Houston). A&M's move to the SEC takes away from both Texas AND LSU by providing the option to BOTH stay at home AND play in the SEC.
That's going to hurt LSU in the future because they're no longer the only geographically-close SEC program. But can LSU afford to go up against a behemoth Texas program that could also offer SEC competition? More importantly, would they be willing to risk it?
Again, we both agree that Texas is an unlikely SEC candidate (IMHO because Texas really isn't that interested anyway, they want PAC or B1G if not independent status).
Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:51 pm to molsusports
I'm not so sure I see your profit angle. Sure, you're losing a non conference game or two every other year, but if you're taking a shitty division 3 team off the schedule, that's a team you pay to come to place anyway, and you could most likely demand higher prices for a marquee opponent, not to mention the added television revenue from the yet to be announced SEC network, or some other contract.
The SEC is set at 8 conference games for now, it bolsters records, and is important for bowl eligibility. My thinking is that when the SEC champ is automatically in the playoff every single year, the number of conference games is in no way a detriment. But who knows? We are all at the mercy of what Bama wants anyway, it just depends how they are feeling at the moment when the decision to do anything is on the table in the Birmingham offices.
The SEC is set at 8 conference games for now, it bolsters records, and is important for bowl eligibility. My thinking is that when the SEC champ is automatically in the playoff every single year, the number of conference games is in no way a detriment. But who knows? We are all at the mercy of what Bama wants anyway, it just depends how they are feeling at the moment when the decision to do anything is on the table in the Birmingham offices.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News