Started By
Message
re: IF the SEC went to 16, who should we add?
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:15 pm to MaroonNation
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:15 pm to MaroonNation
SEC expansion is about TV markets, not schools or athletics. The SEC wouldn't want Louisville because they own that market today, just like they wouldn't add Clemson or Florida State, same reason.
1
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:15 pm to EvilVodka
Anyone but VA Tech.
I would think 2 eastern teams would be better and move Mizzou west.
I would think 2 eastern teams would be better and move Mizzou west.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:16 pm to MaroonNation
herp derp
charter memberships means frick all if we are playing this game.
the need for the newer 4 members TV sets for the SECN would trump the fact that you have been in the conference forever.
and since you were a baby about it, Miss State is the first school to be booted.
Now its down to Auburn and Tennessee.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:17 pm to EvilVodka
Clemson and FSU
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:17 pm to kywildcatfanone
I agree whole heatedly about adding another school from SC or FL because you gain nothing. Louisville, while I would not want, would definitely open the Indianapolis market up.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:18 pm to MaroonNation
quote:
Louisville, while I would not want, would definitely open the Indianapolis market up.
No it wouldn't. A few years ago, Louisville was nothing more than where Memphis is today. That's like saying adding Memphis would secure the Jackson, Mississippi market, which is absurd.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:19 pm to nc14
Neither one of those make any fricking sense. And FSU was offered and was too chickenshit when we added USC and UPig
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:20 pm to Bama Bird
Look at the make-up of the student body at Louisville and get back with me on that
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:21 pm to Dr RC
quote:
the need for the newer 4 members TV sets for the SECN would trump the fact that you have been in the conference forever.
I somewhat agree with you. If it comes to the point that we are kicking teams out, it will be in order to maximize money, loyalties be damned. MSU would probably be the first to go.
I said Mizzou as my second pick, but due to the tv markets, they probably won't be kicked out. I could see the barn getting kicked out for similar reason as MSU (especially if they don't get their athletic programs turned around). But I think Vandy would be at far greater risk than UT, based primarily due to their smaller enrollment/alumni base (I don't think they would demand enough of the Tennessee market shares).
This post was edited on 5/8/13 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:23 pm to MaroonNation
They have 1300 students from Indiana... how does what you're saying possibly make any sense? Really, I'll give you the opportunity to think about it
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:24 pm to MaroonNation
Don't get your feelings hurt, they are both good "fits". Bowden is gone and Dye made him pay for that dumb decision. We have CFB markets cornered, and we happen to be discussing CFB here.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:26 pm to Bama Bird
quote:
how does what you're saying possibly make any sense?
It doesn't, don't even try.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:27 pm to EvilVodka
SMU (Dallas market), Hawaii (great away trips), or Kansas (good in basketball).
To heck with Oklahoma and Florida State--I don't want any more teams State can't beat in football. What's already here, especially in the West, is tough enough.
Many of the rest of you should be thinking the same thing. A lot of SEC teams would have another loss or two if they replaced any team on their schedule from the bottom half of the SEC with Oklahoma and/or Florida State. Those two are already strong programs, and will only get stronger in the SEC.
Another loss or two--imagine your top SEC team slipping from a BCS bowl to CapOne or CapOne down to Peach, etc.
You can tolerate 10-2 or 9-3, but what if adding tough teams drops you to 8-4 or 7-5? Wouldn't be long before you're trying to get rid of your coach, etc., upsetting your whole program. You NEED some weaker teams in the SEC. Can't all be great teams, and none of the other conferences are like that.
To heck with Oklahoma and Florida State--I don't want any more teams State can't beat in football. What's already here, especially in the West, is tough enough.
Many of the rest of you should be thinking the same thing. A lot of SEC teams would have another loss or two if they replaced any team on their schedule from the bottom half of the SEC with Oklahoma and/or Florida State. Those two are already strong programs, and will only get stronger in the SEC.
Another loss or two--imagine your top SEC team slipping from a BCS bowl to CapOne or CapOne down to Peach, etc.
You can tolerate 10-2 or 9-3, but what if adding tough teams drops you to 8-4 or 7-5? Wouldn't be long before you're trying to get rid of your coach, etc., upsetting your whole program. You NEED some weaker teams in the SEC. Can't all be great teams, and none of the other conferences are like that.
This post was edited on 5/8/13 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:31 pm to MaroonNation
quote:
Contracts are bought out or renegotiated everyday. I am sure that in the fine print the schools included in it that if it is seen as advantageous for them to split they can leave. The contracts are negotiated with the conference. Not the individual schools. And in Mississippi you can't sue a state institution. I am sure we are not the only state that protected ourselves in this manner v
No the problem isn't that the schools can leave ... they can leave if they wanted but not only would we have to buy them out of the conference we would also have to pay the ACC any money made via that school because the ACC owns their media right through 2027? ...
To make this simple even though I know it's not exactly this way imagine UVA & UNC come to the SEC the money gained from adding this two school would be significant and would increase the overall pie. With the SEC structure every school gets and equal share of this pie, but under these new agreements with the ACC both UVA & UNC pies would not go to the university but instead they would go to the ACC.
Therefore we will not be taking an ACC school until that agreement is over or as you said if there is some loophole or something but this is very unlikely. Oh and to boot all the schools did this willingly so that means they are trying to keep the ACC together.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:34 pm to McRebel42
Auburn, Vandy and MSU should go to the ACC... It is all about the SEC network and you do not need two teams in one state... Gets you back to 11, then add Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and N. Carolina....
If you want 16 go after W. Virginia and Pitt
If you want 16 go after W. Virginia and Pitt
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:37 pm to allin2010
quote:
WVa and Pitt
Oh lord, no one wants those two.
This post was edited on 5/8/13 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:38 pm to McRebel42
quote:
No the problem isn't that the schools can leave ... they can leave if they wanted but not only would we have to buy them out of the conference we would also have to pay the ACC any money made via that school because the ACC owns their media right through 2027? ...
To make this simple even though I know it's not exactly this way imagine UVA & UNC come to the SEC the money gained from adding this two school would be significant and would increase the overall pie. With the SEC structure every school gets and equal share of this pie, but under these new agreements with the ACC both UVA & UNC pies would not go to the university but instead they would go to the ACC.
Therefore we will not be taking an ACC school until that agreement is over or as you said if there is some loophole or something but this is very unlikely. Oh and to boot all the schools did this willingly so that means they are trying to keep the ACC together.
Your reasoning behind the grand of rights is correct. But my question is this -- would Texas and UNC -- two real powerbrokers of college athletics -- sign their futures away on a dotted line of a deal they weren't confident they could legally break if the time came when it was necessary for them to move forward?
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:50 pm to scrooster
quote:
Push Mizzou to the West. Add Va Tech and NC State to the East.
I like this...
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:51 pm to engie
quote:
Your reasoning behind the grand of rights is correct. But my question is this -- would Texas and UNC -- two real powerbrokers of college athletics -- sign their futures away on a dotted line of a deal they weren't confident they could legally break if the time came when it was necessary for them to move forward?
First thank you on helping me remember what it was called ... grand of rights
Now as to what you asked I would say no that Texas and UNC would not do something to this nature if they didn't feel that they had an legal out to break if they so chose.
Here's the problem I see though Texas for example has a limited grand of rights with BIG12 something like until let's say 2017, which seems like a short enough term that this really wouldn't matter to them.
UNC on the other had is until 2027? and they did this willingly. It seems to me in their case the ACC (aka UVA & UNC) are trying to stay a relevant conference and thus by do this grand of rights for such a long time it stops the lesser schools, Clemson, FSU, VT, NCSU, etc. from leaving therefore keeping the conference intact. UVA & UNC really don't want to leave the ACC and are trying their best IMO to hold it together and I believe this is their power move against the BIG12 to see who the 4th super-conference will be.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 2:56 pm to McRebel42
From a market standpoint the places that make sense are North Carolina and Virginia, so that means UNC (or possibly NC State) and either UVA or Va. Tech. All four of those schools are locked up tight in the ACC, which basically means there are not any schools worth adding.
From a strictly cultural standpoint, Clemson and FSU are the two best choices. But they don't add markets and they are also locked into the ACC.
From a strictly cultural standpoint, Clemson and FSU are the two best choices. But they don't add markets and they are also locked into the ACC.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News