Started By
Message
re: Virginia Tech was the SEC's top choice during 2012 expansion
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:54 pm to TigerBornTigerBred
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:54 pm to TigerBornTigerBred
quote:
Nobody cares about those other sports
They do, but you're right that they're not hugely important in expansion.
On UVA though, I would argue that they are much better positioned for potential long-term success in football and basketball in the SEC than Mizzou is.
0
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:54 pm to BigD Ag
quote:
VT was garbage before Beamer and will probably be garbage again after.
Thank you. Did good in the Big East. What other school also did good in the Big East, Miami and WVU. What are they doing now?? Struggling to compete in better conferences.
But lil Ol Mizzou is actually competing in the SEC just like they competed in the Big 12 and Big 8.
Hell if WVU came to the SEC, the SEC East would really be fricked for years to come since WVU actually went to BCS bowls over Mizzou and have a rabid SEC fan base. WVU would be wrecking the SEC.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:56 pm to beaver
I really would like to see Virginia Tech join the SEC.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:58 pm to AU86
Why is Finebaum getting his hair done at the beauty parlor in the SECN promo ad?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:59 pm to bayou2003
quote:
I might have to look it back up. But when the contracts were on going. I believe if the SEC would have picked up states with another power 5 school they'd only get like $0.60/ subscriber. That's why Mizzou made since, get the full amount with Mizzou. Even with 0.60/subscriber the SEC still makes a lot off of TAMU in Texas because of Texas' population. If Missouri had another Power 5 school the SEC wouldn't get much out of Mizzou being in the conference in terms of $$$$.
You'll have to find me a link to that, because everything I've read so far says that the SECN gets the same per subscriber rate in Texas, Florida, and Georgia as it does in Missouri, Arkansas, & Alabama.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:59 pm to bayou2003
quote:
Thank you. Did good in the Big East. What other school also did good in the Big East, Miami and WVU. What are they doing now?? Struggling to compete in better conferences.
But lil Ol Mizzou is actually competing in the SEC just like they competed in the Big 12 and Big 8.
Hell if WVU came to the SEC, the SEC East would really be fricked for years to come since WVU actually went to BCS bowls over Mizzou and have a rabid SEC fan base. WVU would be wrecking the SEC.
Like how they've wrecked the Big 12?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:00 pm to BigD Ag
quote:
Hell, Virginia was forced to lobby to get VT in to the ACC.
FIFY
If it wasn't for politicians, they would of been left in the Big East the first time.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:04 pm to Bamatab
quote:
You'll have to find me a link to that, because everything I've read so far says that the SECN gets the same per subscriber rate in Texas, Florida, and Georgia as it does in Missouri, Arkansas, & Alabama.
This was awhile back before Mizzou and TAMU joined when other conferences were expanding.
In that case if it's the same rate then Missouri brings in money towards the top of the conference, Population is 6 million. So they're pulling their weight in terms of money.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:05 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
It was Oklahoma, then VT, then A&M, then about 10 schools, then Mizzou.
No, it wasn't. The SEC had no interest in expanding until A&M applied for membership. As Commissioner Slive said, "Who would turn them down?"
The real debate was about who would come in with the Aggies to balance the divisions. The candidates were only AAU schools because of pressure from the conference presidents.
When Mizzou decided to make a change, the SEC expressed great interest and the rest is history.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:08 pm to Kentucker
quote:
No, it wasn't. The SEC had no interest in expanding until A&M applied for membership. As Commissioner Slive said, "Who would turn them down?"
Um the SEC was going to expand sooner or later. Every other conference was expanding for $$$$$. There's a reason why Pac 12 went for Colorado and Utah. Surely wasn't for their football history.
Hell a reason why B1G went for Rutgers, they want Jersey money.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:09 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The real debate was about who would come in with the Aggies to balance the divisions. The candidates were only AAU schools because of pressure from the conference presidents.
When Mizzou decided to make a change, the SEC expressed great interest and the rest is history.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:12 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The candidates were only AAU schools because of pressure from the conference presidents.
So the non-AAU schools and their President's want AAU schools??? Link?
It should have been VT instead of what we received.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:13 pm to bayou2003
quote:
Um the SEC was going to expand sooner or later. Every other conference was expanding for $$$$$. There's a reason why Pac 12 went for Colorado and Utah. Surely wasn't for their football history.
Your timeline is wrong. No conferences were actively pursuing schools. The Big 12 started breaking up and Colorado, Nebraska, A&M and Mizzou told Texas to go to hell. That's what set off the realignment frenzy.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:13 pm to Mizz-SEC
And many on here try to claim that AAU status doesn't matter. 
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:14 pm to Kentucker
quote:
No, it wasn't. The SEC had no interest in expanding until A&M applied for membership. As Commissioner Slive said, "Who would turn them down?"
You're just lapping up the SEC's revisionist history used to flatter A&M to making the jump. Goodness.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:19 pm to Pettifogger
Us plus Mizzou added 50% to the SEC population footprint.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:19 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The candidates were only AAU schools because of pressure from the conference presidents.
Not buying that being in the AAU was a dealbreaker for Virginia Tech.
While Slive did publicly say the AAU was a factor in why Mizzou and A&M were invited, it seems preposterous that a conference that had only 16% of its members in the AAU would thumb its nose at a non AAU school.
No matter now though. What's done is done and now we can boast about 28% of our members being AAU schools.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:21 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Us plus Mizzou added 50% to the SEC population footprint.
They were strategic adds for sure. But we didn't get either of the two most popular schools in the Texas region, and Missouri is a mid level CFB market.
But to some extent, the question is how much those markets can improve. Clearly A&M's share of Texas attention has to have risen considerably in recent years.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:21 pm to cardboardboxer
If population was your goal, a VA or NC school would have been a better choice than MO.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:22 pm to Korin
quote:
And many on here try to claim that AAU status doesn't matter.
Yeah, a lot of people ignore the academic side of the conference. Thankfully, our school presidents are interested in advancing the SEC's research potential.
There are tens of billions of research dollars that the conference schools can compete for and the Big X has shown that an association of schools is more likely to obtain grants than schools that go it alone.
Perfect example: Notre Dame is a great academic school but can never be an AAU member because they're not a power in research. Maybe if they were in the Big X or the ACC full time, that would be different.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News