re: Is SEC diluting their brand?

I don't think the SEC has diluted their brand at all. SEC essentially has every football program in America that consistently matters save maybe a half dozen between the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 combined.

Also, the SEC has maintained a sensible geographic continuity despite the growth. The Big Ten has grown in a very haphazard way: Great Plains, New England, Civil War Border State, Southwestern Sun Belt. The SEC may have extended past the traditional Deep South but it is still a distinctly Southeastern United States athletics conference. If these conferences live past the next big TV contract shuffle, the SEC will dramatically benefit from this geographic proximity of their members. It will simply be cheaper to do non-revenue competition. The Big Ten members are going to bleed needless money playing non-revenue sports.

quote:

---

The SEC may have extended past the traditional Deep South but it is still a distinctly Southeastern United States athletics conference.

---

Totally agree with you on that and I hope it stays that way. If the conference expands again I hope it's with schools like Florida St., Clemson or North Carolina. Proximity is a big plus. I don't think UCLA is going to break even when their women's tennis team has to travel to Minnesota.

quote:

---

ook UCLA sucks balls but theyre not joining the b10 in hopes of turning a profit on their field hockey team… srsly you ppl should think harder abt some of this stuff its definitely NOT all about money not even close

---

And your reading comprehension is about as bad as your football team. No one ever said that UCLA was hoping to make money in minor sports. It was stated that UCLA will need to make more money BECAUSE they'll lose money in minor sports. Learn how to read !!!

Yes, but fans are stupid and the people in power are greedy whores.

As far as football programs go this is by a wide margin the best expansion
Usce and arky
Mizzou and atm
Texas and Oklahoma
Hating on them is fun but it’s laughable to think usce arky and mizzou are even close to the level ou and Texass

quote:

---

1. Didn't attend an SEC school

---

Says you

quote:

---

2. Doesn't know anybody who went to Texas

---

Says you

quote:

---

3. Spends every waking hour of the day talking about Texas & why they shouldn't be allowed in the SEC

---

Pretty wild accusation but you seem mighty rustled by it

quote:

---

Kind of feels like we're a blue blood.

---

A king rat thinks he is a king but forgets he is still just a rat

Face it you just think you are better than you are


Utx had to pay Vandy to come play the State Fair because they were the better and better known football school and were to scared to go on the road and play them in Nashville. They still spanked that "blue blood" in their mind wanna be. You were in the SIAA and never finished higher than 3rd till you tucked tail and ran off to create your own sandbox with the SWC.

Nobody gave 2 craps for Utx football before WWII and the GI Bill while Alabama (a real blue blood was winning the Rose Bowl a time or two between WW I and WW II. Dana Bible came from Tennessee and worked his magic at TAMU and Nebraska but failed in austin as the coach of the nutless queer steers.

From 1893 to 1956 your football team was a whole lot of "meh" till DKR rolled into town and picked up 3 Natty's in less than a decade in mostly the 1960's. Your next Natty was with Butter Tooth in 2005. and a whole lot of under performance before and after Butter Tooth.

Do you really believe that is "ELITE" or "Blue Blood" football?


If it helps, Utx has 4 Natty's with 2 coaches in 2 eras. Georgia Tech has 4 Natty's with 4 different coaches in 4 different eras. Do you really think anyone on the board would call Georgia Tech football "ELITE" or "blue blood"?

quote:

---

what do you think is my football team ,bitch.

---

65-7. Who's the bitch?