Which is one reason that I wasn't too upset with Mizzou because they bring some good roundball action!I still don't get the allure of adding Virginia Tech. The SEC doesn't need football powers and I'm not sure that VT is legit a football power anyway (but that IS the only thing they are good at besides bass fishing). They're somewhere between FSU and Boise St. in terms of their track record. The SEC considered Maryland, and the Big 10 looks like they are going to add them. Remember, the Big 10 is the richest conference, they're not stupid. The path to more $s is not to just try to pile more and more football powers on top of ecah other.
Personally, as I said before I think it's a wash in terms of Virginia Tech and Virginia if you consider their merits as is right now. If you consider that the SEC doesn't have incentive to raise the SoS (especially if they add an extra conference game), I'm not sure what the allure of VT is. VT has 65K in attendance per game. Missouri is at 62K a game, and they're not even a football power. VT reminds me of Miami...
NC State and North Carolina both have a lot to offer though. They both earn boatloads in basketball revenue, and despite struggles in football they are both at 56K in attendance. Once again, VT the mighty football power isn't really putting them too far in the rear view in terms of fan support. Some SEC teams are bound to struggle, you know the Carolina programs will still be selling tickets win or lose.
But, beyond one of the Carolina schools it is hard to say. I like Virginia because it's a don't rock the boat situation. They have more sports revenue than VT if I recall, and they aren't reliant on a strong football program for relevance. But, the more I thought about it the more I'm not in love with either. I've mentioned Notre Dame as a unrealistic long shot and there's a lot of reasons to want that, but Notre Dame wants to be catered to.
Clemson and FSU really don't offer much to the SEC, same with Georgia Tech. Oklahoma? That state is tiny... I think it makes the most sense for the SEC to just wait things out as long a they can. If North Carolina or NC State are just sitting there, ready to grab, then it forces their hand most likely, but until then? There's no rush...
I hope the SEC sees the "final" round of expansions as a way to better their basketball brand. They at this point are only searching out more TV sets for football, they can't really get better, you can only jam so many in the top ten of the BCS. But, if they better their basketball brand, it's going to be more exciting and the money won't hurt either.Which is one reason that I wasn't too upset with Mizzou because they bring some good roundball action!
Agreed. The SEC move to 14 was to stay ahead of the curve and we picked up very attractive markets. I don't think expansion to 16 is on the horizon any time soon.I don't think the SEC wants 16 teams but I could be wrong. I anticipate that the ACC will move on UCONN and Louisville though.
aTm = AoT (Auburn of Texas). At least they do not wear orange."Hah, the SEC adds the third best team in Texas. Big whoop!"
So you are saying we already lost to Auburn? DARNIT!!!aTm = AoT (Auburn of Texas). At least they do not wear orange.
I'm not sure what is blatant about it. The SEC has no undefeated teams because of the brutality of the schedule, and the addition of Texas A&M. There is no blatant logic to add a 9th game as far as I can tell, there is some blatant logic not to. For instance, Alabama is going to play Georgia in the SECCG instead of the regular season as they would have if not for the 8 game conference schedule. A 9 game schedule and Alabama has to beat Georgia in the regular season to get the honor of playing Florida (and still would have had to play A&M). I think that's blatantly a bad idea to raise the SoS even higher.With the SEC having a hard time getting schools on board with the blatant logic of a 9-game conference schedule
Say that when we catch a good Tennessee team and Georgia at some point while Auburn, Arkansas, etc plays two bad East teams...and they win the division simply because of a better intradivisional record. As Saban said, you increase your conference by 15% then you need another game.So you are saying we already lost to Auburn? DARNIT!!!
I'm not sure what is blatant about it. The SEC has no undefeated teams because of the brutality of the schedule, and the addition of Texas A&M. There is no blatant logic to add a 9th game as far as I can tell, there is some blatant logic not to. For instance, Alabama is going to play Georgia in the SECCG instead of the regular season as they would have if not for the 8 game conference schedule. A 9 game schedule and Alabama has to beat Georgia in the regular season to get the honor of playing Florida (and still would have had to play A&M). I think that's blatantly a bad idea to raise the SoS even higher.
Furthermore, with a 9th conference game there's a decent chance Alabama doesn't schedule a team like Michigan, so they can't flex their OOC muscles and garner more support. If the SEC does nothing but beat up on each other, sooner or later people will just dismiss them, they need schedule flexibility.
I like professional football, but this is one aspect of it that I do not like. Can anyone say, "2010 Seattle Seahawks"?Say that when we catch a good Tennessee team and Georgia at some point while Auburn, Arkansas, etc plays two bad East teams...and they win the division simply because of a better intradivisional record.
Does the season end in April then? You can't play two games a day or back-to back days in football like you can in basketball. A 64-team post-season playoff + 12 game regular season? That's insane. Also "64" and "elite" do not belong together in this context. At that point you are on the edge of including losing programs. Just sayin.If the SEC (along with the Big 10, the Big 12, and the Pac 12) ever expand to 16 teams, my understanding is that each conference would set up a tournament at the end of the year. You could have a play-off with the division winners, and maybe a few wildcard teams. Then each of the four conferences would send a team to the national semi-finals and finals. The idea would be to take complete control of the process (and the money). Any team not among the 64 elite teams would be shut out of the process.
If that arrangement ever came to pass, you could have as many conference games as you liked, as no conference would be penalized for having a great team with 2 or 3 losses. You could also schedule tough nonconference games, just like in basketball.
I agree with Saban on most things, but Saban will not be around forever. He's not afraid of a 9 game schedule, and perhaps we as Alabama fans shouldn't be... as long as Saban is around. However, what other coach would you pick to go undefeated in a 9 game SEC schedule? Remember, Saban has only been undefeated once and that was with an 8 game SEC schedule. Now, we're talking about 9 SEC games, and an extra BCS game for good measure? That's beyond brutal. Imagine tacking that onto the 2009 undefeated Alabama team, you know, the one that had McElroy with a broken rib. It just becomes too much... Alabama had the #2 SoS that year, and it was only #2 because #1 had to play Alabama. You add an extra BCS game and an extra SEC game and that becomes just plain ridiculously insane.Say that when we catch a good Tennessee team and Georgia at some point while Auburn, Arkansas, etc plays two bad East teams...and they win the division simply because of a better intradivisional record. As Saban said, you increase your conference by 15% then you need another game.