More conference expansion fodder - to the SEC??
by Go Bevo on Apr 20, 2010 8:12 AM CDT
Email
Print
This comes from NCAA Fanhouse....
I personally would not like to be a member of the SEC. And no, it has nothing to do with "the big, mighty SEC" and Texas would flop. It has merit and would be quite entertaining in all sports. I just personally would not care to be a part of the SEC (not that I have any say in the matter).
Nebraska?!? Virginia Tech?!? Talk about racking up some air mileage. Yea, yea, the WAC and Mtn West does it but that doesn't mean it makes sense. And can you imagine bankrupting the lesser programs - tennis, soccer, swimming?
At the very least, it's an entertaining read....
Oh yea.....if Texas were to join the SEC, how many of you would rally around chanting "SEC, SEC, SEC"?? Yea, me neither.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Anyone who writes this:
Culturally, this would be a perfect fit. These schools belong in the SEC already.
is an idiot when it comes to writing about The University of Texas.
The linked-to article is pure, unadulterated speculation without any basis in reality. I don’t think there’s any chance in hell that Texas will end up in the SEC, no matter how wacky the upcoming Conference Realignment Armageddon becomes. I’ve believed for a long time that Texas would wind up in the Big 10, but if that doesn’t come to pass, for whatever the reason, we’ll be headed to the Pac 12/14/16.
(And as the dominoes start to fall this summer, I’m beginning to come around to PB’s line of reasoning from a couple of months ago — a move to the Pac 10, rather than the Big 10, will give Texas a much better opportunity to control the content and, in turn, the revenue stream.)
Clay Travis is an idiot generally.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Apr 20, 2010 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
I know you wrote a few posts on this topic a few months ago. I find it funny that the reasons we cited here we’re more fact based and well thought out than his article.
We should post the link to that thread and the guy’s blog on big 10 expansion (illinois blog?) that we referenced for Clay Travis to educate himself.
Your tongue can't repel flavor of that magnitude!!
by UT2001 on Apr 20, 2010 11:59 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I've been posting occasionally on Frank's blog as well . . .
. . . and if you want to see what it looks like when a bunch of realignment-obsessed dorks like me start making comments, well, look here.
There is actually some news beginning to emerge, which makes this topic ripe for discussion here on BON again despite the lunacy of Clay Travis. Those reading the smoke signals coming out of the Big 10 seem to believe that (1) the conference will move much more quickly than the original 12-18 month timeline given during the winter, (2) a move to 14 or 16 teams seems more likely than a simple move to 12, and (3) Texas seems to have taken itself out of the running.
Here’s a question I posted on Frank’s blog. As of today, Texas’ future schedules show us playing a conference game at Iowa State on October 24, 2015. What are the odds that that game will ever be played? I’d say less than one in five. I think we’re more likely to play a conference game against Washington State or Michigan State on that day.
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 20, 2010 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions
As one of the realignment obsessed dorks
15-20% chance seems about right. Probably lower, as schools across the Midwest and West coast scramble to replace funding state governments are incapable of providing.
Texas and A&M, despite their relatively stable financial positions would also be well advised to make a move to moderate the occasionally capricious pocketbook of the leg.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Apr 20, 2010 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions
If Texas ignores the Big Ten and looks to go independent
then they are ballsy/smart. If they choose to stay in the Big XII…well, you made your bed.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Apr 20, 2010 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions
But how would independence work?
Not being snarky, just curious. What makes you think independence is a viable option?
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 21, 2010 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Because if Texas can get their own network up and running
and presumably get it on-air in all major TX markets (+ OK & potentially places like KC and NOLA), they will have all that revenue to themselves. It’s not like they’d hurt recruiting and there are few programs out there who wouldn’t like to schedule the ‘Horns. This all basically comes down to UT’s ability to forge their own network, though. If they continue to accept the status quo I’m not really sure what they’re thinking.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Apr 21, 2010 4:49 AM CDT up reply actions
It does make me smile that we end up in like 2 out of every 3 scenarios he lays out
I didn’t RTFA, but it looked like this:
1. TX + someone
2. some other people
3. TX + someone else
4. TX + your brother
5. ok, ok, TX, someone, someone else, AND your brother.
Good to know we’re the pretty girl at the dance.
heh, yeh
we can see very clearly how all this talk about us and about missouri irritates the dickens out of the nebraska folk. how do you think the oklahoma people feel about us headlining every acquisition discussion and them making the small print if at all.
question i have is why? why doesn’t the oklahoma name come up in these discussions? to all appearances, neither the big ten or the pac-10 is at all willing to accept them. the slimy sec would take them, but all mention of that comes after exhausting what they have to say about us. what is it that takes the sooner name out of the discussion?
the small state population? nebraska has a smaller state but gets substantial coverage in some discussions. both ou and nu have fairly large followings that somewhat offset the state size.
i’m sure ou’s academic standing is a huge sticking point for the big ten and the pac-10, but the laughingstock sec doesn’t seem to be knocking down their door either. ou is kind of a sideline to any discussion with them.
is it the slimy reputation (a reputation sooner fans claim doesn’t exist, by the way)? i don’t see how the sec would have a problem with that.
regardless, that’s got to burn somewhere pretty deep with them.
by rumplestiltsglenn on Apr 22, 2010 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions
The offseason is here
And we get crap like this written. We’ve covered this before in much morereasoned detail here on BON. The author is really stretching for a story so why not throw this crap together…
The author is either lazy or incompetent. Why write this piece only considering tv markets and the whims of conferences? That’s about half the equation. No mention of the actual decision makers: University Presidents/regents? You know, the people concerned with little things like academics and
research money?
Yea, it must the offseason when this crap gets written. At least think about the possibilties from all angles not just what a fan would like to see.
Your tongue can't repel flavor of that magnitude!!
by UT2001 on Apr 20, 2010 11:51 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
OK, let me just hijack this thread . . .
. . . and open up a general realignment discussion. Yes, I know, “again,” but I do think the Big 10 is going to act, and act boldly, within 4-6 weeks, which will start all sorts of dominoes to fall. And since the future conference affiliation of Texas quite possibly will be changed by the time we kick off Labor Day weekend, it’s worth a few, somewhat repetitive, discussions.
I’m beginning to think that there might be massive realignment occurring this summer, or over the next two summers.
I think many observers, like Andy Staples from a couple of months ago, have foreseen an eventual college football world with four major conferences of 16 teams each (which I’ll call 4×16). I’ve thought that as well, but I thought it would be one or more two rounds of realignment away after the one about to commence. The Big 10 simply adding one member getting to 12 would not be enough to spur an immediate move to 4×16.
But a Big 10 move to 14 or 16 just might do it.
Imagine the Big 10 expands to 16, and the teams it grabs are Notre Dame, two from the Big XII (let’s presume Nebraska and Mizzou) and two from the Big East (let’s presume Rutgers and Pitt).
Suddenly, the Big East is no longer a viable, BCS-level conference, though there would be an assortment of some pretty damn good programs (WV and Syracuse [despite recent struggles]) and some intriguing schools with good upsides (UConn and Louisville). Oh, and Cincy and USF.
Meanwhile, ignoring the likely poaching of the Pac 10, the Big XII could probably survive, but would be scrambling for a couple of replacement schools and would be weakened no matter who replaces NU and Mizzou.
Without massive realignment, even without the Pac 10 coming in to scoop up the Big XII schools of its choice, you’d have the remaining Big XII schools elevating a couple of MWC schools to BCS level, and presumably the surviving Big East schools would latch themselves to a couple of C-USA or MAC schools to try and retain BCS status.
And with that, the BCS level pie has been diluted even further by elevating that many more schools to the point at which they can share in the TV contracts and bowl revenues and such.
Wouldn’t it be in the existing BCS schools best interests to try and prevent diluting and go to a 4×16 model now rather than trying to figure out what to do with Utah, TCU and Memphis down the road?
It actually wouldn’t be that hard to get to 4×16 today if the Big East and Big XII start imploding as a result of Big 10 (and Pac 10?) expansion. To get to a 4×16 model (ACC, Big 10, Pac 10, SEC) requires those conferences to expand by a total of 19 schools. There are 21 schools in the Big XII + Big East + ND. It almost fits together too easily, and it’s not that hard to come up with a short list of schools (presumably USF, ISU, Cincy and Baylor) which wouldn’t make the cut if two schools were not to be invited along.
Take the aforementioned NU, Mizzou, ND, Rutgers and Pitt in the Big 10, then take Texas fleeing a disintegrating Big XII and bringing along Tech, Kansas, KSU, CU and Baylor to the Pac 10, then add A&M, OU, OSU and Louisville to the SEC, and add WVU, SU, UConn and Cincy to the ACC, and you’ve got your 4×16. Sorry, Iowa State and USF.
I know that’s a pretty arbitrary realignment in some cases, so quibble away with where Louisville, Cincy and WV would wind up, whether A&M would split with Texas to go to the SEC, whether my assumption that kid brothers Texas Tech, OSU and KSU are legislatively tied to the hips of their respective flagship universities is correct, whether Baylor and Cincy, and not USF and ISU, would survive the cut, etc. But regardless of the quibbling, it works pretty easily, and the problem of what to do with the Oklahomas and West Virginias of the world if their conferences break up is solved.
As a Chicagoan with a lifetime's exposure to Notre Dame arrogance
I’m willing to bet Notre Dame once again stays out of expansion plans and seals their fate as this century’s Army. If this stays true the scenarios are incredible.
I feel the most likely is this:
Nebraska, Missouri (although I would much rather have Kansas), Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt to the Big Ten.
In this scenario, I feel the ACC finds the additions of UConn and Louisville to be no-brainers; they are traditional hoops powers with enough academic clout (at least UConn) to appease the UVA’s and Duke’s while maintaining the status quo for football. WVU was made for the SEC with their single-minded approach to football at all costs. South Florida would likely end up there as well on potential alone. This leaves Cincinnati. Um, that one BCS appearance was fun, huh? Hello MAC, goodbye relevance. This ignores the ramifications upon the Big XII with the departures of Nebraska and Mizzou. The scenarios on that side are almost too dizzying to contemplate, but one thing seems certain; the SEC is not about to sit around and let the Big Ten take from them the only thing they have going for it, namely football supremacy. A&M and Oklahoma are like-minded institutions that would be right at home in that league. The rest of the Big XII would fall like a house of cards with Colorado praying Stanford doesn’t reject a bid to join the Pac 10 and the other members finding themselves the newest members of an expanded (and perhaps BCS-worthy) Mountain West. The one remaining piece of the puzzle would be your Longhorns. I firmly believe that if UT doesn’t take the prize that is Big Ten membership, it’s because they’re already making plans to reap the ultimate reward: independence. But unlike Notre Dame, they’re built for the long-haul.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Apr 20, 2010 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Very interesting thoughts . . .
My responses, in no order in particular:
(1) I think USF, and not Cincy, is more at risk of being left out in realignment if the Big East implodes. USF is too much of a newbie in a state which the ACC and the SEC already have nailed down with Florida’s Big Three. I think Cincy to the ACC would be a good fit on the basketball side of the equation, much as UL and UConn would be. Not sure of the academics, but I can’t imagine USF would be any kind of a step up on Cincy in that regard.
(2) Kansas to the MWC (or a MWC-Big XII hybrid)? That’s very hard to contemplate. That’s one reason I have a 4×16 model emerging quickly — there might be too many good schools sitting out there that are worthy of a conference much better than the MWC (or a Big East-C-USA hybrid in the case of WVU and Louisville and UConn) if their respective conferences are blown up.
(3) I agree completely that the SEC will swoop in and take who they want (other than Texas, whom they can never ever ever ever have) if the Big 10 jumps to 16 and mortally wounds the Big XII and Big East in the process. But would Oklahoma State be tied to OU’s hip legislatively? I would think “yes,” which is why I have them moving east with the Sooners. I’m not sure the SEC would object too terribly much if the cost of picking up an OU and A&M was also adding OSU.
(4) I think the issue of Texas independence (no, not that kind, Gov. Perry) has been tossed around on this board quite a bit, and the general consensus seems to be that it’s a non-starter. Even if independence were driven on dreams of retaining 100% of the revenue of a theoretical Longhorns Sports Network, providing content for that network would be very problematic if the Horns weren’t in a conference. Who would we be playing in football in late October? Or in basketball on a weeknight in February?
Additionally, I could imagine that the Horns would face far more strenuous hurdles qualifying for the BCS than Notre Dame faces today. Oh sure, we’d be able to qualify for the BCS Championship Game by finishing in the top two, no doubt. but in the three or four years per decade in which that didn’t happen and we needed to go to a lesser BCS game, I don’t see Texas, a school which would be abandoning the conference system, receiving quite the same ease of qualifications from the rest of the BCS schools that ND, a historically independent school, currently receives.
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 21, 2010 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions
PS
I bet there are a lot of basketball schools, including one in particular in the SEC, who would quibble with your description of WVU having a “single-minded approach to football at all costs”!
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 21, 2010 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions
this is a pretty neat idea
The 16×4 theory seems like it would work. But some of the BCS conference bottom feeders should be deferred to non BCS (i.e. non 16×4) conferences and replaced with Boise, TCU, Utah, BYU, maybe a couple others. If there is a massive realignment, it should happen that the best teams are included in the top 64. I like your theory, but the Boise’s of the world would throw a fit if only the 6 BCS conferences were considered in the realignment.
but the Boise’s of the world would throw a fit if only the 6 BCS conferences were considered in the realignment
That’s part of the point of moving to a 4×16 model sooner rather than later. It’s a lot easier to keep someone not already in the club out of the club than it is to start kicking out those already in the club to make room for newbies.
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 20, 2010 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Can I set this down here?
Need a place to post this without effort in doing a post or something. Maybe this could be related – if Hopkins gets his way, we can join the Big Ten and get in on some of this:
by Infield Elephant on Apr 22, 2010 2:20 PM CDT reply actions
Texas playing at Wrigley would be multiple kinds of awesome.
Northwestern playing at Wrigley? Well, maybe I’ll actually go to an NU game next year.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Apr 22, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
