Could the SEC Look at Texas A&M Again?
by Year2 on Jul 13, 2011 12:00 PM EDT
in Conference Realignment
Email
PrintPerhaps it's just a coincidence of grasping for offseason content, but two different and major Texas A&M sites had front page stories yesterday revisiting the idea of the school joining the SEC. We covered the drama surrounding the Aggies-to-SEC rumors from last year's conference realignment saga pretty thoroughly (1, 2, 3, 4).
Thanks to paywalls, I can't actually read what those articles said. (See addendum below. Both articles are free now.) However, I can predict that there's a lot of hand wringing over the current state of the Big 12. Arch rival Texas pretty much runs the joint, and judging from some message board lurking, Aggie fans are none too pleased about the ESPN-backed Longhorn Network.
I personally still have my doubts about how serious the SEC truly was about expanding last summer. The most logical explanation of everything I read is that the SEC was interested in bringing Texas A&M and Oklahoma over from the Big 12, but OU made it clear fairly early on that it was hitching its wagon to Texas. Presumably the SEC would have been interested in Texas too, but UT was never interested in the SEC. Therefore, I never was all that sure Mike Slive was bringing aboard another school.
That said, a couple of "SEC insiders" told the Birmingham News that A&M to the SEC was likely, and Chip Brown talked of Slive doing everything he could to get Texas and TAMU. Of course, anything Brown reported back then has to be filtered through the understanding that he was essentially putting out whatever the Texas brass was feeding him at the time. With everything up in the air and the dissolution of the Big 12 looking likely until the very end though, it makes sense that Slive was burning up the phones trying to make a move into Texas.
With the Superconference Armageddon not coming to pass, the SEC didn't need to go beyond 12 teams. In fact, the threat of the Aggies going East might be the thing that keeps it from happening forever. Everything I've read leads me to believe that those at the University of Texas do not want there to be an SEC team in their state. They think they control how Lone Star recruiting happens, and opening the door to SEC schools and their cutthroat recruiting is not in their interest.
All you have to do is go back in the archives and see how chaotic things got when news of TAMU considering the SEC broke. We even got to the point where Brown (and probably UT too) was trying to paint an A&M move to the SEC as being the bomb that blew up the Big 12, though A&M officials were smart enough to keep the burden of conference survival on Texas. I don't think UT saw the potential TAMU eastward move coming, and there was enough support for it on the A&M side for UT officials to scrap the Pac-16 plan and save the Big 12.
So the question I have for y'all is this: could the SEC be the one to set off the drive for superconferences next time around? Presently, everything is working well with the 12 schools it has, but the environment for TV contracts is more lucrative now than it was a couple years ago when the conference signed its deals with CBS and ESPN. That's because the competition for TV rights is much higher with ESPN having to bid against (or with) not just Fox but Comcast and Turner too. It's a far cry from ESPN and Raycom battling for the SEC's regional syndication package a few years ago.
The SEC probably has only two options for increasing its TV rights income: waiting for the current deal to expire more than a decade from now, or expanding. Of the nearby markets the league currently doesn't have in its footprint, Texas is the most lucrative. Might the SEC make the preemptive strike and go for Texas A&M first rather than cross its fingers that it will turn down another advance from the Pac-12?
I don't think Mike Slive will be the one who does that, based on his lukewarm public support for the idea of expansion. Whoever ends up his successor might, and with Larry Scott's ambition known and Jim Delany on the record saying he'll look to expand beyond 12 in the future, it's not outlandish to suspect the SEC will fire the first shot.
UPDATE
Here is a non-paywalled link to the piece by David Sandhop from the Texas A&M Scout site. I have no idea about the quality of this guy's sources, so caveat emptor.
The other article referenced above from Texags.com publisher Billy Liucci is also free now. Again, I don't know this guy and can't vouch for his sources or track record.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If the SEC could get TAMU and Oklahoma, that would be nuts
TAMU and Fl. St. would also be good.
Dayman, Fighter of the Nightman, Champion of the Sun
Who would you have move east? Bama and AU?
"We can't have raccoons for the Christmas thing. They'll hunt the kids for sport."
- Ron Swanson
by tybuddhaboy on Jul 13, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
If we got 2 new teams in the west
Only one would move east. You’d either have to move Kentucky west and Bama/AU east, which would be horrible, or only add a western team at the same time as an eastern team (FSU or Clemson).
by commodore_dude on Jul 13, 2011 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
The easiest solution in a 14-team SEC with A&M and OU added is moving Auburn to the East. It has history with Florida and Georgia, more than any other West team has with any of the East teams except Bama/Tennessee, and it could become Alabama’s designated rival.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
The only problem with the designated rival plan would be some poor team gets stuck with OU.
"We can't have raccoons for the Christmas thing. They'll hunt the kids for sport."
- Ron Swanson
by tybuddhaboy on Jul 13, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem with that scenario . . .
. . . is that it ends Alabama-Tennessee as an annual rivalry. You’d hear some serious screaming about ditching the Third Saturday in October.
Go 'Dawgs!
I proposed yesterday a work-around
w/14 teams, moving Auburn East, you have 2 permanent cross-div rivals, and a 9 game conference slate.
That renews AU/UF, and retains AU/UGA, the Iron Bowl, Florida-LSU, Third Saturday, Cocktail Party. It also brings back the aTm-LSU rivalry, and renews Arkie’s SWC ties.
Of course, it means an end to one creampuff, but does anyone want to see more than one or two Alabama-Kent State or Florida-Citadel games anyway?
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2011 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe move Auburn and Alabama both East, and Vandy West
They’re the 3 schools closest to the middle anyway. You keep Bama/UT and Bama/AU, plus get AU/UGA back.
VU/UT could still happen, since both would lose their interdivision rival. Plus it sets up UGA/Ole Miss, Bama/OU, and Texas/AU. Those are a lot more even (for now) than shipping the Vols or UGA out to Norman.
The biggest problem is that you’re moving 5 teams around instead of 3.
Works for me...
Tennessee and Auburn being a yearly game would be great too… We played every year between 1956 and 1991, with rare meetings prior to 1956.
I still have to wonder if the Big-12 is going to stick with a 10-team lineup with no CG.
A CG game generates a lot of cash, plus with 9 conference games, as we saw from UF’s financials, the teams lose a chance to earn big-bucks with a cupcake home game every other year.
They'll have to grab 2 more teams to stay competitive
It’s pretty obvious BYU is holding out for an invite… besides them, I dunno. Two more Texas schools would make geographic sense, but I can’t see a single school in the conference supporting that idea for either watering down recruiting (the current Texas teams) or just making it more of a Texas-centric conference than it already is (everyone else). Air Force to replace Colorado? Memphis if that Fedex sponsorship money is really out there? Those are the only 3 teams I can see as realistic possibilities.
by commodore_dude on Jul 13, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The biggest thing preventing Big 12 expansion is that ESPN massively overpaid the conference to keep it together. I think ESPN was concerned that it could lose its place as the primary TV rights holder if the Superconference Armageddon happened, as all the old deals would be tossed and the Big Ten and Pac-10 are really cozy with Fox right now.
So, the conference is already getting a bigger pie than it realistically should. For expansion to be worth it, they’d have to grow the pie even larger to offset the fact it’d be cut into more slices. Who nearby can the Big 12 invite that has that kind of power? I don’t know if even inviting Nebraska and Colorado back could increase their revenue enough to be worth it, because like I said, they’re already getting overpaid.
I think the Big 12 will stay where it’s at until the conference is destroyed for good. Most of the coaches in the league didn’t like the conference championship game anyway.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
On ESPN overpaying, totally disagree
Actually, I am sure you have it backwards. ESPN massively underpaid and negotiated terms in their 2016 contract that are much more favorable for them than the Big 12. That is why they kept the contract when NU and CU left, it was much smarter for ESPN to keep the current contract with 10 teams than to try to negotiate a new deal with a Pac 16.
The problem with your logic is that believing ESPN overpaid the Big XII is high inconsistent with everything else that has happened. The Big XII, Big Ten, and the SEC regularly outdrew the Pac 10 in TV ratings, (yes, I know that Calif is highly populated, but they simply don’t watch football, which is what matters) yet the Pac 10 just signed a contract that put them on par with the Big 10 contract. The ACC, which pales in comparison to the Big XII in TV ratings, received a large boost in money. The Big XII itself is now received 3 times more money with its new contract with FOX for its secondary rights. All of these lead to a one-sided Big XII contract in favor of ESPN.
What happened is that with the success of the Big Ten network, everyone realized that college football’s TV rights were massively undervalued everywhere. The network’s jig was up and now they are paying considerably higher prices. In 2016, if the Big XII is still together, I wouldn’t be shocked that the current 8 year, $560 mil contract is substituted with a new 8 year 1 billion dollar contract, or something similar. Its not because there is anything special with the Big XII, its just the fair market value for major CF programming.
Google's homepage celebrates too much shit.
ESPN overpaid the Big 12 because it chose not to renegotiate its contract with the conference despite losing two schools. Those schools have a major media market (Denver) and a national reputation and following (Nebraska) between them.
ESPN had the option to revisit the deal and reduce the payout. It should have done that if that contract was the only one it was concerned about at the time. As it is, the Big 12’s contracts with ESPN and Fox pay it the same amount that the ACC is getting from ESPN and Raycom. That’s for a league with two fewer schools and a lot fewer major media markets. The Big 12 is being overpaid.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
Ok
“ESPN had the option to revisit the deal and reduce the payout.”
- which would have drove UT, OU, Tech, and OSU to the Pac 10, so no, ESPN would not have wanted to renegotiate a new contract for the current terms were so favorable for ESPN. Think of it this way, if ESPN was losing money on the Big XII contact, why would they stop the 4 from leaving? They already have the primary rights to an expanded Big Ten, everything SEC outside of one game per week, the ACC, etc. Do you really think the 10 teams Big XII provides such crucial content that ESPN is willing to not be profitable to maintain it?
“That’s for a league with two fewer schools and a lot fewer major media markets.”
As I mentioned previously, ultimately media markets don’t matter, people watching your programming does. And while the Big XII has fewer people, it more than compensates for the fact that they have more eyeballs that watch Big XII football than the ACC does watching ACC football. Lastly, see this…
http://www.arentfox.com/email/fishel/BCS%20Revenue%20Discrimation%20Chart.pdf
The ACC is outdrawn by the Big East of all conferences. So I say again, you have it backwards, ESPN absolutely owned the Big XII in its 2016 TV deal.
Google's homepage celebrates too much shit.
You made my point for me
I’m not saying that ESPN will lose money on its Big 12 contract; I’m just saying it’s a worse value now than before last summer.
As for the other part, we are in agreement on the basics. Had ESPN tried to negotiate its contract to more accurately reflect the diminished value of the Big 12, the Big 12 would have died. That could have set off a domino effect.
The Pac-16 would have happened with Fox getting a huge cut as co-owner of the Pac-16 Network (as it is with the Big Ten Network). The Pac-12 Network is happening, but with the Pac-16, there is no Longhorn Network for ESPN to run. A&M could have gone to the SEC, which means renegotiating the SEC contract. The SEC wouldn’t just become a 13-team league, so that means the ACC (most likely target) is affected. Then the Big East is too (most likely ACC target), and so on. The Big Ten might have grown beyond Nebraksa too, etc.
By choosing to sit tight and overpay the Big 12, ESPN preserved the rest of its contracts. That was the point I was making.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
Oddly, NU's media presence is not what you'd think.
Sioux City/N. Sioux City for instance, is a river town 120 miles from Lincoln and which splits the NE/IA line. Most folks I knew there were a three-way split between NU/IA/ISU…couldn’t pay to get a Nebraska game on; it was Hawkeyes all the time, even in No. Sioux (which is the Nebraska part of the city). NU games were on if NU was playing the Cyclones (and, occasionally Kansas teams).
10 minutes north, and directly North of NE, was Dakota Dunes (in SD). Same thing: B10 mostly.
Obviously, when I lived in Omaha, it was a bit more proportional, but, you’d still be surprised the play that the Hawkeyes got on local television.
I believe, honestly, that the draw for Nebraska truly is South of Omaha/Lincoln (and, perhaps West a bit into Colo). Because, it certainly is damn near invisible north of there. Minnesota, 5 hours away from Sioux Falls, for instance, was given more of a run than Lincoln was.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2011 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The Big12s problem with an up coming ESPN deal is
they have almost no content left to sell. Amazingly they gave the bulk of the content to Fox with their 2nd tier rights. They will get top dollar per game, but they only have about 12 games to sell. They would be better off giving up their 3rd tier content to ESPN, in effect almost doubling the amount of content, but of course they can’t do that because of Texas (and OU) wanting their own networks.
by ev on Jul 14, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
It wouldn't surprise me...
…if Texas went Independent at some point in the not too distant future.
They really don’t need a conference anymore. Now that it’s ten teams, there isn’t a Championship Game and it’s attendant benefits. They got ALL the money. They have a National Brand.
There really isn’t any reason for them to hang around the B12 anymore.
That would really throw a monkey wrench in the whole process.
As an Arkansas fan, I’d love to see Texas A&M in the SEC.
Awww. c'mon girl.
Who's going to sign up to add Texas though?
This isn’t like BYU, a traditionally good — but not powerhouse, team? Probably no one where there’s a Conf. CG, that’s for sure (or, it will be the bottom feeders taking a beating in a paycheck game, e.g. Vandy).
An independent Texas give you a whole lot of UAB, Southern Miss, ECU -type games.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure about that
You could get a lot of teams who look for one quality nonconference game (it’s only one for them but could quickly become several for Texas), add in Texas teams like TCU and Texas Tech (who would probably both play Texas regardless of what happens with their conference situation) and then tack on a mish-mash of Rice, Houston and another couple of cupcakes. Not ideal, but it would get the Longhorns into the national title game if they won out.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
The problem is once October rolls around
Texas would be left with those poor match-ups. I agree there are more than enough quality teams willing to play Texas, but only in September. It’s not something that couldn’t be overcome, but it would be tougher for Texas than say ND or BYU.
by ev on Jul 13, 2011 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
And god forbid...
Texas goes indy and pulls off a few more 5-7 seasons, then you’ve got the next Notre Dame in terms of national perception… but with about 1/15th the fanbase.
Well, you could add in ND and BYU as regular opponents
Maybe even Army and Navy.
I agree that it would be difficult but not impossible. But would I put it past Texas to be arrogant enough to try it? No, not at all.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
While BYU would be happy to be a Texas regular
There is no way ND would sign up for that, they play them as much as they want to now. I think if the Big12-2 blew up, Texas would strike out on it’s own. The chance of moving to a Pacific based conference has passed them by once again.
by ev on Jul 13, 2011 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Realistically...
the state legislature would pretty much demand games with A&M and Tech… other than that I’ll honestly just say good luck.
If they are a top ten team, then yeah… they’ll get some offers from big programs with something to prove. But if they sink down into that sorta dangerous but not really a great win territory, nobody will want to play them.
another issue arises
Sure, a top 25 team may want to pick up a schedule-feeder, or a marquis opponents. But, how many of these top 25 games is Texas going to want to play a year? 4-6? 8-10? NCAA ’12 Custom Schedule of A+?
I just don’t know. And, Texas has to strike a balance between competitiveness and pallatability (sp, I know); between doing enough to stay in the national spotlight, but without commiting BCS suicide by overscheduling.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2011 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions
God, I am so sorry
I am multitasking here at the office, and the above post is an abomination of grammar and spelling.
/cone of shame.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2011 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Texas as an Indy doesn't really work
At least, not if they have any intention of playing competitive schedules in their other sports. There’s a reason why ND is in the Big East for everything but football — surviving as an independent in basketball and non-revenue sports is a pain. And there’s no handy Big East for Texas to join (though I suppose we’d probably take them in the actual Big East if they don’t mind being TCU’s designated rival and travel partner).
The Big 12 or CUSA or SEC allowing non-football members? Texas in the MVC? Seems unlikely.
They might be able to get on in some stuff...
like crew and gymnastics, but no… we’d never take a member to play basketball or baseball without them also being in for football.
And Texas must not ever get into the SEC
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Jul 13, 2011 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That will never happen
We’ve got a shared hegemony now (even if it is merely perceptual and not reflected in the contracts); and we’re not going to rock that boat by letting in a disproportionally stronger member, who demands more and more concessions, while adding less value in proportion to their demands.
Think of them as Walmart with a twangy drawl.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2011 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Texas would probably have more demands, but has more value than any program in the nation
QB Garrett Gilbert was the Beavis & Butthead episode of the 2010 college football season. Even when things were going well there was always one bad decision that meant he wasn’t going to score.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1070636.html
by burntorangehorn on Jul 14, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Value, yes, but not enough to justify it.
The conference has seen what UT did to the SWC and B12, and would not risk disturbing a relatively collegial business model for a member that wants to be more equal, and which has a demonstrated history of not playing well with others/creating factions/bullying others, etc.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2011 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, they certainly do look out for No. 1
I maintain any university would do the same in their shoes, but I totally understand why some people wouldn’t want Texas to join their school’s conference. But the fact remains that adding Texas would give a conference more additional value than any other expansion prospect would.
Regardless, whether or not the SEC is interested in Texas (and you could possibly be correct that they are not), Texas isn’t interested in the SEC, so this is all moot.
QB Garrett Gilbert was the Beavis & Butthead episode of the 2010 college football season. Even when things were going well there was always one bad decision that meant he wasn’t going to score.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1070636.html
by burntorangehorn on Jul 15, 2011 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
A&M and Expansion
If the SEC got A&M, they could also get Kansas from the then-dead Big X. If they wanted to go up to 16 teams for the so-called super-conference look, they could raid the Big East for schools like West Virginia and Louisville. This would add to the football middle and low classes while significantly boosting the basketball scenes. The geographic footprint would expand, but with similar type schools.
I believe the ACC – long rumored as a target in expansion talks – would not only survive the super-conference move, but would thrive by picking the bones of the Big East clean once the Big Twelve and the SEC take their shares. Ideal pick-ups like the Oklahoma schools and Texas are just pipe dreams not really worth discussing further.
MileHighReport.com member since 02/06/07, promoted to "Position Coach" (i.e. new staff writer) on 02/16/10!
Kansas -- DO NOT WANT
We have our elite basketball school with little football acumen and teams that are occasionally elite. Get TAMU, try for VT and if that doesn’t work, ask WVU. We only need 14 teams, and Kansas is way down the list.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
I would hope
That Mizzou is on the list well-before VT. Like A&M, good academic profile, money, decent in a few sports without dominating anything, and would be good for a hypothetical midsouth portion of the conference (with Ark/UT/UK).
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2011 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Mizzou
Definite dark horse in SEC expansion…
MileHighReport.com member since 02/06/07, promoted to "Position Coach" (i.e. new staff writer) on 02/16/10!
and, hey, they started the Civil War!
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2011 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
VT
Contrary to popular opinion, I think the ACC is safe in the expansion frenzy. Georgia, South Carolina and Florida will keep Georgia Tech, Clemson, Miami and Florida State out of the SEC. The North Carolina schools (North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State and Wake Forest) won’t leave each other and/or are not attractive enough. Virginia would be Virginia Tech’s unwanted tag-along like how Texas Tech tried to ride Texas’ coattails into the Pac-16. That leaves Boston College (way out of our footprint and otherwise a bad fit) and Maryland (meh). I actually think they’re more likely to expand and get stronger (maybe with UConn and Syracuse with the Big East getting torn apart) than they are to lose anyone.
MileHighReport.com member since 02/06/07, promoted to "Position Coach" (i.e. new staff writer) on 02/16/10!
Don't think Florida has the influence...
to keep FSU out IF they wanted in badly enough, they’re far too valuable, and where is Florida(or for that matter any one of us) going to go?
Neither Clemson or GT would be big enough targets, and with GT there may be more than one team pushing to keep them out. I’m sure some greyhairs at the Mississippi schools and Alabama are still sore over their little row in the 1960s. Miami is Miami… nobody really cares when they aren’t particularly great at football, and even when they are the revenue is pretty crappy from them.
Foley has clout.
Probably the most powerful AD in the SEC. And, in a conference where athletics drives revenue, endowment and enrollment, that says a lot.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Virginia, not VaTech
Mr. SEC did an exhaustive review of expansion last year. Came to the conclusion (which I agree with) that the only two schools that make sense are Texas A&M and Virginia.
It is about expanding TV viewing to new states, not adding Miami/FSU/GaTech/Clemson where the SEC is already in that state.
Think Mizzou was third.
VaTech, not Virginia
I read Mr.SEC’s analysis and I agree with the high marks given UVa. But here is the problem: UVa is considerably less likely to accept an SEC offer. They are a charter member and they are closely tied to the original ACC schools (particularly UNC and Duke). The only way UVa would go to the SEC is if they thought the ACC was going to implode. And either way, UVa would want to take UNC and Duke with them…
And if UNC and Duke went, NCState and possibly Wake would have to be included…
And if those five were included and the conference was going down, expect the state governments of South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia to push for the inclusion of Clemson, FSU (and maybe Miami), GT, and VT…
Do you see where this is going?
Now, if the SEC would make a bid to take Virginia Tech, the rest of the ACC would tolerate it. And VT, while pleased and proud to be in the ACC, does not have such long and deep ties to it. (Also remember, the ACC wanted Syracuse instead of VT to begin with—Virginia gov’t activism forced the inclusion of VT at the price of Syracuse). If VT went to the SEC, UVa and VT could still play in the out-of-conference, and all would be fine with both schools. The ACC could then go after Syracuse, Pitt, and UConn to solidify the northeast if they want to go to 14 teams.
The SEC needs to realize that expansion needs to be done in such a way that doesn’t destroy the ACC or else they will be knee deep in political and legal battles. Maybe we should call it “smart expansion.”
Also, of all the SEC-like football schools in the ACC (Clemson, FSU, and VT), the one that the ACC can most easily afford to lose is VT. And the one that the SEC would most benefit from gaining is VT.
All this being said, it is no given that VT would accept an SEC bid either. But the invitation of VT is much more palatable to all parties than one given to UVa.
by Maroon Baboon on Jul 14, 2011 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, UVA wouldn't jump for the SEC
They’re not the type of program given to adopting SEC culture with regards to sports. Va Tech certainly would, I believe. And let’s face it: VT simply doesn’t belong in the ACC. If they were to leave, the ACC could easily replace them with Pittsburgh, Syracuse, or even UConn—any of whom would fit much better in the conference.
QB Garrett Gilbert was the Beavis & Butthead episode of the 2010 college football season. Even when things were going well there was always one bad decision that meant he wasn’t going to score.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1070636.html
by burntorangehorn on Jul 15, 2011 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions
VT can stay away, thx...
maybe if they keep it up after Beamer finally retires… but when a team was bad for 90 years, I take that into account a lot more than the last ten if I’m building in the long run.
And, you need a lot more than a perpetual 9-win football team.
We need eyeballs, dollars, markets, academic reputations, university endowments, populous states, success across the board, and some cultural ties to a historically-aware region: That’s why I’d take Mizzou over Oklahoma and VT combined. Throw in A&M and those are two perfect candidates.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
What I expect...
is for the Big12 to ultimately collapse, with the MWC benefiting.
The ACC may lose a team or two, but will absorb pretty much what they want from the Big East.
Most likely the SEC would either do nothing at all, or take Florida State +1. ACC gains WVU and South Florida if FSU left… otherwise they gain WVU and Rutgers.
Problem for the MWC is they end up with the garbage
Depending on what Texas and OU would do, the Pac12 would move in to pick up the larger schools. Larry Scott has already said the conference isn’t done expanding. If everyone goes 16 members, there is a good chance they break away from the NCAA and start a playoff. If that happens, they don’t take the MWC with them.
by ev on Jul 13, 2011 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Meant to clarify...
no way in hell Texas follows Mizzou and Company to the MWC, they’d go Pac12 in a heartbeat if Texas A&M pushed it far enough to leave a viable opening to do it. Until the other state schools put them in a position where it’s politically viable to leave, nothing will happen though.
It's really hard to say what would have happened if the Pac 16 hadn't fallen through
In the short run at least, the Big 12 North leftovers were probably heading to the Big East (this was pretty definite, though I strongly suspect a last-minute swap of TCU for Iowa State would have happened despite having no evidence for it).
The question is whether there would have been a rush to 16 team leagues all around or whether the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC would have sat and watched to see if the Pac 16 worked for a while. I’d bet on the SEC and Big Ten being very conservative on that (since they’re doing great now), and the ACC probably isn’t in love with the idea of a second Big East raid in advance of getting potentially raided by the SEC as they’d want to know what they had left first.
I don't think Iowa State would've been left out in the cold
TCU may well have made it, particularly if Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech were not available. TCU is peanuts, even compared to Iowa State, in terms of football market value, but they’d still be better than nothing (or Baylor) for getting into the Texas football media and recruiting markets.
Anyway, if the Pac-16 had incorporated Texas, A&M, Tech, and Colorado, then the remaining nine teams of the Big 12 would’ve had to have gone on as a nine-team conference, reinforced with MWC/WAC/CUSA/MAC teams (BYU, Utah, TCU, etc.), or merged with the Big East. I don’t think merging with the Big East would’ve been as likely, as each of those two conferences possesses an AQ BCS bid, and consolidating would’ve meant a lower bid:teams ratio.
QB Garrett Gilbert was the Beavis & Butthead episode of the 2010 college football season. Even when things were going well there was always one bad decision that meant he wasn’t going to score.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1070636.html
by burntorangehorn on Jul 15, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Scott might want to...
… but there’s no workable way forward now. The Pac 16 needs Texas & Oklahoma to work. Texas isn’t going anywhere without A&M and Tech (and depending on how Texas politics break, Baylor might be in the mix as well). Oklahoma isn’t going anywhere without Oklahoma State for the same reason. So you’ve got five schools to add and 4 spots to put them in. So no Pac 16.
Without ND, there’s no Big 16. It seems extremely likely that NBC/Comcast will pay $TEXAS for ND football, so ND isn’t going to the Big Ten (or anywhere else, unless the Big East splits up — and even then, non-revenue sports would be fine in the conference with the non-football Big East members + Xavier and Dayton).
There are a fair number of schools around the SEC’s periphery that you guys might like, but they either overlap with existing markets, are small markets, or are pushing somewhat out of the southeast.
True, just because Scott wants it doesn't mean it will happen
Athought to be honest, he has a nice track record to date. I think he will wait and see if the Big12-2 implodes or not. I’m sure he would be happy with Texas, TT (or TAMU) and the OK schools. If Texas goes rogue, he could still pick up the OK schools with a pair from Texas or two others. The Pac10 was more than happy to take Oklahoma State to pick up the Sooners, I’m sure they will again. The problem for Texas and ND (which the Domers mentioned last time) was they don’t want to be locked out of a postseason. Conferences going to 16 sets up some very nasty postseason possibilities.
by ev on Jul 14, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Gun To My Head...
I’d say it’s just a matter of time before A&M and West Virginia are in the SEC. If we go up to 16 (and that kills the Big XII) I think we round out our roster with Kansas and Missouri. There’s not much else that will be available to us without upsetting the current membership. Moreover, I really do think the ACC will be a predator, not prey, in the next round of conference musical chairs…
MileHighReport.com member since 02/06/07, promoted to "Position Coach" (i.e. new staff writer) on 02/16/10!
I stil don't see how going to 16 makes money for an AQ conference
… without adding two elite programs and market dominance of a big state (or an equivalent national audience like Notre Dame). The Pac 16 proposal was the only 16-team major football conference proposal I’ve ever seen that had any chance of working in the long run.
I know who I would like to see the SEC go for in expansion, but there’s really only two ways the SEC can expand to 16 and get enough extra money to make it worth it.
One is to go get Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and someone like Maryland or NC State. With this one, you’re banking on Oklahoma as having national appeal with VT and the other to get a lot of mid-Atlantic viewers. The other would be to get A&M, VT, Duke, and North Carolina to get a foot in Texas and dominate the fast-growing mid-Atlantic region. The problem is that Duke and North Carolina basically run the ACC, and they’re not going to give that up to become just another SEC school (to say nothing of what they think about the image of their academics). They’ll never do it, and getting VT without Virginia might not be possible.
Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State get thrown around a lot, but they do nothing but overlap current territory. Only FSU has a shot of raising the conference’s value by virtue of its national appeal. TCU has this same problem if A&M is also coming.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
It might not be possible to get OU without taking Ok St either.
That was the issue the Pac10 found to be true. I think the ACC expansion showed the state of Virginia now considers UVA and Va-Tech to be joined at the hip. Getting the SEC from 12 to 16 isn’t going to be the easiest thing to do.
VT and UVa not really joined at the hip
Getting VT into the ACC was more about not leaving VT in a down-graded BigEast than it was about having VT and UVa together in the same conference.
But you might be right about OU and OkSt.
by Maroon Baboon on Jul 15, 2011 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Is Texas really the most lucrative nearby market?
Of the nearby markets the league currently doesn’t have in its footprint, Texas is the most lucrative.
What about edging into the MD/DC/VA market? I don’t think UVA would join up with the SEC, but I think Maryland or even VT (which would be less impactful on the DC market, but still good) would get into the juicy DC media market.
QB Garrett Gilbert was the Beavis & Butthead episode of the 2010 college football season. Even when things were going well there was always one bad decision that meant he wasn’t going to score.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1070636.html
by burntorangehorn on Jul 14, 2011 11:34 AM EDT reply actions
But people living in the MD/DC/VA market
don’t watch college football like people in Dallas and Houston. People can’t simply exist, they need to consume your product. Its why the Big Ten chose Nebraska over Mizzou. Nebraska draws almost 2x the TV ratings historically than Mizzou, and that is what counts, not just the media markets in the native state.
Google's homepage celebrates too much shit.
...and they've won, historically, twice the games of Mizzou...
I know you’re partisan but go to Lincoln, then go to Columbia: Gun to your head, where are you sending your established teams to play?
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Sir Francis Bacon
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
And the other thing is...
Mizzou doesn’t entirely own either of their ‘big markets’. STL is split with Illinois (though it still has a Mizzou lean) and KC is a KU town (three times as large of an alumni base in the metro). As a former citizen of the area, I’d say that Nebraska has more pull in KC than Mizzou.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Team Speed Kills
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
