Started By
Message
re: Let's say Mizzou protest occurred the same year SEC considered expansion
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:02 pm to ZeusStamos
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:02 pm to ZeusStamos
TV sets, or lack thereof.
Google number of cable subscribers in the state of Oklahoma, multiply it by the increase in SECN payout for being in the footprint, and ask yourself if OU pays for itself or detracts from the rest of us.
Google number of cable subscribers in the state of Oklahoma, multiply it by the increase in SECN payout for being in the footprint, and ask yourself if OU pays for itself or detracts from the rest of us.
This post was edited on 12/28/17 at 6:05 pm
1
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:03 pm to The Balinese Club
see my post
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:05 pm to ZeusStamos
Your earlier post isn't reality. It is a fantasy.
And you want to add two schools from the state of Oklahoma? Good grief....
And you want to add two schools from the state of Oklahoma? Good grief....
This post was edited on 12/28/17 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:07 pm to Ramblin Wreck
I still would have preferred West Virginia.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:08 pm to The Balinese Club
West Virginia would had pulled some of the Western Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh), parts of Maryland and Eastern Ohio markets. West Virginia has a large portion of students from Pittsburgh up to Jersey shore.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:08 pm to kingbob
Why, because they make you feel more "Southern" despite costing you money?
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:10 pm to WildcatMike
It doesn't matter who they pull. The SEC Network wouldn't have been able to add Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey into the footprint for payout purposes by adding WVU.
Why do you think the ACC didn't take WVU?
Why do you think the ACC didn't take WVU?
This post was edited on 12/28/17 at 6:12 pm
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:13 pm to The Balinese Club
Virginia Tech would had added the DC Beltway television sets.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:14 pm to WildcatMike
VT would have been a great add, but they chose to stay in the ACC. As did UVA, UNC, and NCSU.
That is why MU is here.
That is why MU is here.
This post was edited on 12/28/17 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:14 pm to The Balinese Club
quote:
Why, because they make you feel more "Southern" despite costing you money?
No, because I prefer their brands of football and basketball. They make for more interesting competition, better road trips, and also fit in better geographically with the SEC East. They also provide a natural "Hatsfields v. McCoy's" rivalry game for Kentucky.
Mizzou just still feels like kinda an odd fit, a marriage of convenience, and one of arbitrary metrics over considerations like fan experience and rivalries. Mizzou belongs with their real rivals: Kansas, Kansas State, and Nebraska. This forced rivalry with Arkansas just doesn't feel any more natural than Arkansas's forced rivalry with LSU.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:16 pm to Ramblin Wreck
A&M was always getting in due to our academics, money and great relationships with Arkansas and Alabama
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:18 pm to kingbob
Were those things worth less money?
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:23 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
Would Mizzou still have been selected?
Yes. Our former president had a hard-on for them.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:25 pm to The Balinese Club
quote:
Were those things worth less money?
To me? absolutely. I'm just a fan.
I was a little more ok with letting in A&M because of the built-in rivalries with LSU and Arkansas that each had a long, albeit not recent, history.
I still don't like the fact that Texas and Texas A&M no longer play each other annually. If it were up to me, we would have some how either taken both of them, or neither.
In my opinion, Georgia and Georgia Tech should be in the same conference, as should Clemson and South Carolina. Conferences should be more geographically sensible, and more regional, not less.
I don't like how these tv networks tabulate that conferences adding a school in a different state immediately means they're worth more money. For fans, they just want to see better games. What makes for better games are two things: best possible talent on each side of the ball and emotional rivalry between the two teams and fanbases. Those make for more exciting and compelling games.
There is pure straight HATE between Texas and Texas A&M, just like there is between Alabama and Auburn, and Florida and Florida State. You don't get that between Mizzou and Arkansas or Tennessee. It's just not the same.
We're trading away the traditional rivalries which made college football so interesting in exchange for short term monetary gains based on a business model which is rapidly becoming obsolete. It's like watching a beautiful woman undergo plastic surgery that makes her look like an alien. I feel the same way about having so many marquee matchups played at neutral site NFL stadiums rather than home/@homes.
This post was edited on 12/28/17 at 6:29 pm
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:29 pm to kingbob
I get ya. But all those schools still play each other, sans TAMU/tu and Missouri/KU. And FWIW, TAMU and the SEC did everything they could to keep playing those games. tu refused to keep playing us an forbade KU from playing Missouri.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:32 pm to The Balinese Club
Then what's stopping Mizzou and Nebraska from playing each other?
The real problem is too many egos in Athletic Departments, too much short-sighted greed in ESPN buying broadcast rights, and too little common-sense from Conference Commissioners to bring these people to heel.
The real problem is too many egos in Athletic Departments, too much short-sighted greed in ESPN buying broadcast rights, and too little common-sense from Conference Commissioners to bring these people to heel.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:36 pm to Ramblin Wreck
RAed because a shite-eating bee fan is denigrating an SEC school. GT left the conference decades ago. Stay out!
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:42 pm to WildcatMike
Va Tech won't go anywhere without Virginia. the politicians won't allow it. B12 wanted Va Tech when they added their last 2 teams.
Posted on 12/28/17 at 6:44 pm to ZeusStamos
Because they won't come without little brother (Okie State).
Posted on 12/28/17 at 7:05 pm to The Balinese Club
quote:
Nice troll, but since you are a dumbass and don't understand what drove expansion and realignment seven years ago... Texas A&M was accepted as a 13th member, with or without another school coming. WVU tried to get into both the SEC and ACC before going to the XII. There are more TV sets in the suburbs of Houston than there are the entire state of WV. Tell me again why WVU fits? GT isn't coming back..ever. No school will ever be added inside the footprint of the league, because it doesn't add any more money to the payout. This means that FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Texas, and Miami (or even OU) are never coming also. VT would have been a better fit, as would any NC school. But they chose not to leave the ACC. This is why Missouri works. I know you are galactically stupid and don't understand any of the dynamics of expansion. But Missouri is here for a reason. Deal with it.
Lots of assumptions on your part about the intent of my post. To clear it up for you -
- my post wasn't meant to be a troll
- I would not have been in favor of GT rejoining the SEC, though we would be in the SEC East, we don't make athletics a big enough of a priority to do any better in the SEC than we do now in the ACC. There is a greater likelihood of us winning the Coastal division than the SEC East. Revenues wouldn't justify it either.
- The ACC schools didn't seem to be interested in leaving at the time, especially with the grant of rights agreement being negotiated. Since the GOR wasn't agreed to until 2013, I'm not sure why ACC schools weren't given stronger consideration. Like I stated, it must have been that the ACC schools just weren't interested and viewed the ACC as a better fit for their programs. Revenue for the ACC is competitive with the SEC. I think NC State would have been the most likely school to have made the jump if any would have left, just to separate themselves from all the other schools in the state.
- Texas wouldn't join the SEC, too much pride and potential recruiting advantages
- Oklahoma wouldn't join the SEC without Okie Lite and would rather not play the tougher schedule
- When A&M approached the SEC, I'm sure the conference considered options of adding a 14th team before accepting A&M. Mizzou was probably easily the #1 choice with WVU, East Carolina or non Texas / Oklahoma Big 12 school having a huge gap as the #2 choice. If Mizzou was undesirable due to the campus controversy and players threatening to not play, would the SEC had been willing to drop way down to the #2 choice, decided to stick with 13 teams for a long period of time, or just said no to expansion? That is my main question.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News