Started By
Message
re: Would the SEC consider targeting Cincinnatti?
Posted on 12/13/12 at 7:26 pm to NashBamaFan
Posted on 12/13/12 at 7:26 pm to NashBamaFan
We are going after UNC and UVA, if we don't get them we will get either duke/nc state and Va tech We win no matter what... The SEC would take Okie and texas I belive but is not going to happen.
1
Posted on 12/13/12 at 7:32 pm to bamalee
Texas is shackled politically to Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech. That, and we would absolutely block that. Ain't happening.
Posted on 12/13/12 at 7:33 pm to NashBamaFan
Thats a suprising poll to me. I guess I underestimate the Catholic presense in KC and STL. I hate those frickng golden domers more than almost anything.
Ou would be ok but no way in hell does the SEC want 2 teams from a pissant state.
Ou would be ok but no way in hell does the SEC want 2 teams from a pissant state.
Posted on 12/13/12 at 7:38 pm to RocketBallz
quote:
Simply put, if Oklahoma wants in, we'll take them. If they want OK State to come in too, then so be it. Make no mistake, they're our #1 target
this is false.
Seems like it's NCstate and a virginia school almost certainly. UNC is the dream, but not happening
It's also crazy to think A&M could block OU by itself. I just don't think OKC and Tulsa are all that valuable...
This post was edited on 12/13/12 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 12/13/12 at 7:43 pm to Swoopin
While UC would crawl on hands & knees thru schards of glass to join the SEC , it is not a good fit.
- inner city school
- horrible at baseball
- hoops okay (middle SEC quality)
- would have to play conference game @ Bengals stadium
Louisville, VT or WVU would have been a much better fit.
- inner city school
- horrible at baseball
- hoops okay (middle SEC quality)
- would have to play conference game @ Bengals stadium
Louisville, VT or WVU would have been a much better fit.
Posted on 12/13/12 at 7:53 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
Not unless we approved it. Which we wouldn't.
Ahem,
Posted on 12/13/12 at 8:14 pm to Vols&Shaft83
If more growth is coming for the conference, clearly the states the SEC will go after are North Carolina and Virginia. From an overall viewpoint those are the best targets.
Posted on 12/13/12 at 8:17 pm to Swoopin
quote:
Why not VT?
Yes sir! Good "fit" and a fine academic instituion (engineering)
Posted on 12/13/12 at 8:35 pm to Palooza11
Cincy people put chili on top of spaghetti.
DO NOT WANT.
DO NOT WANT.
Posted on 12/13/12 at 9:11 pm to Swoopin
I'm just not so sure the OP is serious. Cougar High would be better than Cincy. And neither are worth a frick for our league.
Posted on 12/13/12 at 9:15 pm to Bubbles Up
quote:
I'm just not so sure the OP is serious. Cougar High would be better than Cincy. And neither are worth a frick for our league.
You haven't been in "Our League" long enough to get a vote. But I agree
Posted on 12/13/12 at 9:24 pm to the808bass
Personally I could have done without the last expansion. Don't want another round either.
Posted on 12/13/12 at 9:30 pm to Swoopin
Clemson and FSU are the best fits, IMO.
But since TV market share is the driving force behind expansion, it would prolly be NC State and VaTech.
But since TV market share is the driving force behind expansion, it would prolly be NC State and VaTech.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 7:38 am to Swoopin
UC has nothing to offer the SEC. They can't even sell,out their 37,000 seat stadium for their biggest games.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 8:39 am to Swoopin
I think we should target them for homecoming games. They look better on the schedule than FIU.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:02 am to Swoopin
quote:
Would the SEC consider targeting Cincinnatti?
No
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:35 am to Swoopin
I don't think the SEC really "targets" anyone.
The B1G and PAC are the aggressive ones. In 2010 it made sense--both conferences wanted to get to 12 members so they could host conference championship games (seeing how much $$$ the SEC gets from ours).
Meanwhile, though the PAC almost ended up with 16 teams (and all three of the big ones in Texas), the SEC seemed to be very happy with the 12 it had. And when A&M did come over as #13, the SEC didn't seem to be concerned about getting to 14 even though it would have resulted in an unbalanced divisional setup.
If some good candidates show up for #15 and #16 then the SEC will get them. If not, the SEC is happy being a 14-team de facto NFL Development League as it rakes in tons of $$$ doing so.
The B1G and PAC are the aggressive ones. In 2010 it made sense--both conferences wanted to get to 12 members so they could host conference championship games (seeing how much $$$ the SEC gets from ours).
Meanwhile, though the PAC almost ended up with 16 teams (and all three of the big ones in Texas), the SEC seemed to be very happy with the 12 it had. And when A&M did come over as #13, the SEC didn't seem to be concerned about getting to 14 even though it would have resulted in an unbalanced divisional setup.
If some good candidates show up for #15 and #16 then the SEC will get them. If not, the SEC is happy being a 14-team de facto NFL Development League as it rakes in tons of $$$ doing so.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:36 am to Swoopin
A team from Ohio in the southeastern conference? That makes sense.
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:36 am to Swoopin
they've sold like zero tickets for their bowl game
Posted on 12/14/12 at 9:45 am to JDM1992
quote:
Yes, this is about money. It's about getting subscribers to the new SEC Network. Adding two Oklahoma schools adds far more subscribers than NC State and Virginia Tech.
no
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News