re: 14 team SEC is unsustainable. SEC Needs to get to 16 now.

quote:

---

How about this one?

9-game schedule. You play each team in your pod. You have a permanent rival in EACH of the other pods (example: A&M could have MS State, VT, NC State) You play the other three teams in one of the other pods.

With this you can schedule home-and-home over six years.

---

Are you suggesting a 4 team SEC championship with that format? It also seems dumb. I like the 14 team league.

quote:

---

The SEC Network is driving the train.

---

Still think this is premature to use as your primary factor in expansion. With WatchESPN rolling out, tv networks could be going a la carte in a few years.

quote:

---

You can say whatever you want but unless you follow the NEW STATES guidelines your statement isn't worth discussing.

---

So basically the topic has changed from who we want to see join the conference into predicting who the SEC front office will take?

That's pretty fricking boring.

quote:

---

Fans only have one roll in expansion- demand the SEC Network once it hits.

---

Jesus.

frick yes

quote:

---

Arky
Mizzou
A&M
LSU

Bama
Auburn
Ole Miss
Miss State
Va Tech
Clemson
South Carolina
Tennessee

Georgia
Florida
Kentucky
Vanderbilt

---

quote:

---

but I want FSU

---

quote:

---

SEC NORTH
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Virginia

---

Tennessee approves this message.
Also, it can't be called the North, it has to be called the "Less South Division" or something like that

quote:

---

Aggressor

---

Is completely on point on this topic and as I said early its not an "IF" its a "When" does the SEC expand to 16 and those points that myself and Agressor have stated will be the guidlines for whose added ...

... personally I would love to add Clemson there is no other school more deserving to be an SEC school because they align with us so much on so many levels ... BUT I won't hold my breath or expect to recieve my Obama Lottery Money being delievered for Christmas by Santa either

quote:

---

How many expansion threads do we have with how many people that don't understand expansion at all? If the SEC expands it will be to increase the value of the SEC so here are a few guidelines: 1. No expansion in current SEC states. It's all about the SEC Network and double counting a state only costs money. So forget about Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT, or any Texas school. It's just not happening. It also eliminates OU because OU comes with OSU. 2. Academics matter. That is why WVU is in the Big 12 and not the SEC or ACC or Big 1G. In the end that really simplifies things. The only logical adds for the SEC are a NC school and a Virginia school. So here is how those schools rank: North Carolina-Easily the most attractive. Great overall AD. Elite academics. True Flagship school of NC. Have the resources to be a football power if they get it together as well. UVA-Outside of football history they are a home run. Elite academics and the true flagship of Virginia. In the discussion for most prestigious public universities. Pretty solid overall AD as well. VTech-Nice backup school to UVA. Solid football rep but would likely struggle in the SEC. They are average/below average in terms of resources by SEC standards and at some point Beamer is going to retire. Great cultural fit. Good academics but not AAU. NC State-Mediocre across the board and controlled by UNC quite literally. Haven't won the ACC since '79 so I don't know how anyone thinks they will ever compete in the SEC. Duke-Small private basketball school with great academics. Not happening. Wake-Lesser version of Duke. I think what happens is Slive waits for the Big 12 to get FSU or Clemson to panic and go to the Big 12 and then he swoops in and grabs UNC and UVA/VT. It's really the only move that makes sense.

---

Pretty well on target, although I think that if Slive had his druthers (and he usually does), we'd sit at 14 for a while. And for those complaining about the "thought police" and having to talking within a framework, this the the SEC rant, not the unicorns and rainbows board. The discussion ought to serve some purpose, whehter it's sketching out logical probabilities or simply pissing folks off. Pie in the sky talk about who you would like does neither.

A couple of thoughts:

Those fighting the 9 game schedule need to realize that, if we go to pods, 9 games is inevitable. Pods are merely a scheduling concept whereby you don't have permanently fixed divisions, but instead, change the composition of your two divisions periodically (whether every year, or every other year). In order to play a championship game, you must split into two divisions of six teams or more that play a round robin schedule (that's why 13 didn't work--too tough to play a round robin with unequal divisions). In a pod system, you would be playing seven divisional games (your 3 fellow pod members, the four teams from the other pod which composes your division for that season), and 2 games against teams from the other 2 pods (1 each). Since 9 is inevitable if we go to 16, and works better in a 14 team league if we're going to preserve cross-division rivals (Bama-UT, UGA-Barn), then we should go ahead a bit the bullet now, so as not to foul up non-conference schedules in the future.

But, understand this--a pod sytem will not preserve every annual game that everyone wants to play. Nobody here seems to care whether Vandy and Kentucky play UT every year, but they do. Yet, most of the pod plans put out there blithely assume that as long as Bama-UT and Auburn-UGA are presered, that is the only issue. Not true.

quote:

---

That's how realignment works. It's about adding value in terms of dollars.

---

Jesus, n00b, I KNOW how it works, I've actually been an SEC fan since before expansion in '92.

quote:

---

You are free to argue your dream scenario of schools that don't qualify but it just makes you look foolish.

---

There you go again, trying to tell people how to think.

Well, the OP, that would be the Original Poster, the one who actually started the thread, said:

quote:

---

Which two should we grab?

I know it doesn't make sense from the TV standpoint, but I want FSU and Clemson.

---

Which leads me to believe that this is a thread about who we would like to see in the SEC.

I'm sorry if I think that adding Mizzou was a mistake. I guess you think it was great because of the money, but I'm just a fan whose primary concenr is entertainment, and I don't find Mizzou in the SEC entertaining at all.

But then I guess as simple consumers, we shouldn't actually be concerned with our entertainment and should just focus on the revenue stream for the SEC front office.

So carry on with your prediciting who the SEC will get next, something tells me you don't really know what you're talking about as you would have NEVER predicted Mizzou to the SEC.

quote:

---

As to the "customers" comment you have to understand that if you live in and SEC state you are already accounted for in the eyes of the league.

---

I don't have to understand that shite, you have to understand that as long as consumers just follow blindly along like sheep, they will not get the products they want.

quote:

---

Now if you want to go back to saying the SEC should kick out the newbies and add back in Sewanee and Tulane feel free.

---

And if you want to continue being an a-hole, that's fine too. Just because I'd like to see FSU and Clemson in the conference over bullshite like Oklahoma State or Wake fricking Forest doesn't mean I want Sewanee back in.

But yeah, we need more people like you to give us guidelines on what we're allowed to think.

thx