LSU-Alabama was the pinnacle, but SEC is headed for downward slide

I hate to say it but that really was too long... I really couldn't take the time to read it.

The top teams will still be the top teams. LSU is absolutely stacked for the next couple of years to come. So is Alabama.

But, I agree that the Missouri addition is terrible.

Not entirely true. How do you think auburn has landed so many good recruits lately. "hey we have no depth on our team, and you're reallly good so you'll have a good chance at starting as a freshman."

quote:

---

Stewart Mandel's reasoning is based on Texas A&M and Missouri entering the conference.

---

That may make the top teams better, since they will now gain a recruiting foothold in Texas and Missouri.

Well this was Bama's dream team.. .They will still have a lot of talent, but these may be their losses this year.

Richardson
Chapman
Harris
Upshaw
Hightower
Kirkpatrick
Menzie
Barron
Maze
Hanks
Smelley
Vlachos
Jones

quote:

---

I read stuff like this and it just shows how little these guys actually know. For instance, how many of our guys are home grown. I don't see many kids leaving LA to go play for Mizzou or A&M. Sure, some may get a way, but most that do aren't even offered by LSU.

---

Ive been less and less impressed by Mandel over the years...How does Mizzou and A&M prevent the upper tier from staying upper tier? A&M can and most likely will get better and be even with Arky but they will still have trouble recruiting against LSU for the foreseeable future. They will have a unique niche in texas which LSU hasnt been hitting much lately and A&M will improve by keeping local talent, not by poaching other SEC schools talent.

These two moves allow the conference to make more money. Which will allow better facilities bigger stadiums more academic help which in turn helps recruiting which in turn brings in more wins which allows better facilities and the cycle goes on and on.

The only possible way the additions can hurt the top of the SEC is if there are no new tv deals and there is two more hands in the same size pot.

The SEC become more dominant when they added two mediocre programs in Arkansas and South Carolina... in doing so they were able to play a conference championship game, showcasing the league and making additional revenue that other conferences did not have the opportunity to generate

The addition of Missouri and Texas A&M is a very similar move - it adds more television sets and more in conference games (SEC will expand from 48 regular season conference games per year to 56 regular season conference games per year) that can be televised.

MU and A&M do not have to be elite football teams for this type of move to make a lot of sense. In fact if the SEC had added two powerhouses instead of Arky/USC or MU/A&M they might have ended up being less successful not more

To me the big question is this:

Do A&M and Mizzori give us more money through the markets they open up than we lose by now having to split the pot 15 ways.

IMO, Mandel has a point about Missouri diluting the character of the SEC as well as the on-field product, but I think he overstates the effects. Also, I don't think A&M dilutes the product in any way other than the geographic distance fans will have to travel.

quote:

---

Do A&M and Mizzori give us more money through the markets they open up than we lose by now having to split the pot 15 ways

---

Open up 3 pretty big markets. Houston, Kansas
City and St. Louis.