Here we go again: Expansion carousel

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,897
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
This is why I love this site, you gave me a new thought on Texas. Could Texas pull a Notre Dame and join the AAC American Conference and play a five game schedule in football? They could keep their independent status and longhorn network. The AAC would love the status Texas could bring to them.
I believe that's exactly how it would go down. Or, they could park all their other sports in the Big East which no longer sponsors football. Although it probably wouldn't be a good fit; they are 8 private Catholic schools in the northeast.

Also I greatly prefer 8, 9, or even 10 team conferences to the super conferences. I miss the SWC, the Big 8, a true Big 10, Pac 10 and the SEC with 10 teams.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
I think Oklahoma should have made a bud for the Big Ten. They would be a better fit there culturally and athletically and could renew the Nebraska rivalry. But they sold their soul to Bevo and leaving little brother behind might cause political problems at home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If Oklahoma was to go anywhere it would be the PAC 12 or sec. The big 10 would be way too much travel in the long run with some extreme north states. If they got into the PAC south it wouldn't be near as bad as the big 10 west. Also Oklahoma considers their rivalry with Nebraska in the same league as Nebraska considers their rivalry with Missouri. There are historical games but Oklahoma would rather play Texas.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
The easiest solution would be to add Houston and SMU and re-draw the divisional lines putting Texas in the Big 12 south and OU in the north. Not much to gain though TV market share or dollar wise.
 
Last edited:

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
After thinking about this some more; I would prefer eight 10 team conferences. Every team plays every conference team (9) games and 3 OOC games. IMO this is a fairer way to decide the conference champion since every SEC team has to play the top dogs as well as the doormats, no luck in drawing cross divisional rivals. As it is now drawing UGA and UF in a particular year is tougher than drawing UK and Vandy. This way cross divisional rivalries are also maintained.

The SEC would eliminate USCe, Arkansas, TAMU and Mizzou. They would be re-aligned in other 10 team conferences. In this scenario, with no need for any conference championship games, the
eight conference champions would be seeded in the first playoff round. After these games the second and NC final game would be the same as last year. In the event of a tie, head to head would be deemed the conference champion.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
In this scenario, with no need for any conference championship games, the
eight conference champions would be seeded in the first playoff round. After these games the second and NC final game would be the same as last year. In the event of a tie, head to head would be deemed the conference champion.
Please, please tell me you just forgot the blue font...

You just stated a scenario in which LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida (all top 13 all time teams) would be fighting it out over a single birth in your 8 team playoff.
 
Last edited:

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
After thinking about this some more; I would prefer eight 10 team conferences. Every team plays every conference team (9) games and 3 OOC games. IMO this is a fairer way to decide the conference champion since every SEC team has to play the top dogs as well as the doormats, no luck in drawing cross divisional rivals. As it is now drawing UGA and UF in a particular year is tougher than drawing UK and Vandy. This way cross divisional rivalries are also maintained.

The SEC would eliminate USCe, Arkansas, TAMU and Mizzou. They would be re-aligned in other 10 team conferences. In this scenario, with no need for any conference championship games, the
eight conference champions would be seeded in the first playoff round. After these games the second and NC final game would be the same as last year. In the event of a tie, head to head would be deemed the conference champion.
Good idea, but it would kill us in the long run. The SECCG has benefited the SEC more than it has hurt it. 96,06, 07,and 03 the SEC wouldntve made it. 2001 Tennessee is probably the only time it has hurt the SEC. With a 10 team 9 game conference Bama would have to play UGA and Florida in the same year. I see 2-3 losses a year for every sec team under that schedule. Oklahoma suffers that fate all to often since aTm,Mizzou,Colorado, and Nebraska left.
 

champions77

Scout Team
Sep 6, 2006
149
0
0
Norman, Ok
Oh I hope not, expanding into that tiny state makes no sense and never did.

To me, the only real logical expansion targets as of right now would be Notre Dame (Indiana population 6.59 million, Notre Dame is also favored in other states), North Carolina (9.9 million, premiere basketball program) and Virginia (8.3 million, bit of a consolation prize after the other two). I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

Honestly, I haven't heard any real expansion talk, the only real possibility is the Big 12 moving to 12 teams, but that doesn't figure to shake up much since they'd be going after low hanging fruit.
Ole KrAzy you were wrong before and you are again. When all of the conference realignment banter was going on in 2010 and 2011, you were always the one that called out OU as a tiny state, not enough TV sets and the SEC would never ask OU to be in the SEC. Well I guess Mike Slive never got the memo, as we all know now that Texas A&M and OU were originally invited. Only after it became evident that OU preferred the PAC, and Mizzou saw that the Big XII was about to collapse, did they then make a it know that they would love to be in the SEC. As you recall, Mizzou had for years made noise about joining the Big Ten, and when they chose Nebraska over them, did make the smart move toward the SEC. They were desperate.

KrAzy all those TV sets in North Carolina and Virginia don't do you any good if they aren't turned on. Plain and simple they are Professional Football states, their focus is on the Carolina Panthers and the Washington Redskins. Basketball is the sport that makes them turn on the TV for college sports, not football.

OU is one of the blue bloods of College Football, and OU has a following that extends beyond their borders, just like Bama does. The State of Oklahoma has about 1 million less population than ALabama, and latest figures show that Oklahoma's growth rate is more that twice what Alabama's is. As to the college football fan breakdown, there is probably three times as many OU fans in the State as OSU fans. Are there three times as many Bama fans as Auburn? Maybe I don't know.

KrAzy I don't understand your hangup with the State of Oklahoma. I do know when all of the conference realignment chatter was going on 3-4 years ago, you of all of the posters here, was the most outspoken one against inviting OU. Makes me wonder why exactly, because you have never offered any compelling argument as to why OU in the SEC would not make the SEC stronger. Mike Slive thought so, at least at the time. Maybe you felt that a lesser football program would provide an easier route to Wins. Yes you will find that in North Carolina and Virginia. That I can understand.

Me? I would love for OU to be in the SEC. SEC is the best, why not want to play with the best? I am a Bama fan too, and have been to 5-6 games in Tuscaloosa and the Cotton Bowl against Texas Tech. The experience I had at the OU/ Bama game in 2003 was the best. Classiest fans, great campus, great band, great stadium, it was the most fun I have ever had at a College Football game. The passion of the SEC is unmatched. Who would not want to be a part of that?
 
Last edited:

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
Good idea, but it would kill us in the long run. The SECCG has benefited the SEC more than it has hurt it. 96,06, 07,and 03 the SEC wouldntve made it. 2001 Tennessee is probably the only time it has hurt the SEC. With a 10 team 9 game conference Bama would have to play UGA and Florida in the same year. I see 2-3 losses a year for every sec team under that schedule. Oklahoma suffers that fate all to often since aTm,Mizzou,Colorado, and Nebraska left.
It is still a good idea, even with that in mind. Consider that the best schools in the SEC would split out into two separate conferences. Just as many of the "power" SEC tams would make the new playoff scheme proposed in GrayTide's post - maybe more.

If we are going to have a playoff while making EVERY regular season game count, this is as good an idea as I have seen.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Ole KrAzy you were wrong before and you are again. When all of the conference realignment banter was going on in 2010 and 2011, you were always the one that called out OU as a tiny state, not enough TV sets and the SEC would never ask OU to be in the SEC. Well I guess Mike Slive never got the memo, as we all know now that Texas A&M and OU were originally invited. Only after it became evident that OU preferred the PAC, and Mizzou saw that the Big XII was about to collapse, did they then make a it know that they would love to be in the SEC. As you recall, Mizzou had for years made noise about joining the Big Ten, and when they chose Nebraska over them, did make the smart move toward the SEC. They were desperate.

KrAzy all those TV sets in North Carolina and Virginia don't do you any good if they aren't turned on. Plain and simple they are Professional Football states, their focus is on the Carolina Panthers and the Washington Redskins. Basketball is the sport that makes them turn on the TV for college sports, not football.

OU is one of the blue bloods of College Football, and OU has a following that extends beyond their borders, just like Bama does. The State of Oklahoma has about 1 million less population than ALabama, and latest figures show that Oklahoma's growth rate is more that twice what Alabama's is. As to the college football fan breakdown, there is probably three times as many OU fans in the State as OSU fans. Are there three times as many Bama fans as Auburn? Maybe I don't know.

KrAzy I don't understand your hangup with the State of Oklahoma. I do know when all of the conference realignment chatter was going on 3-4 years ago, you of all of the posters here, was the most outspoken one against inviting OU. Makes me wonder why exactly, because you have never offered any compelling argument as to why OU in the SEC would not make the SEC stronger. Mike Slive thought so, at least at the time. Maybe you felt that a lesser football program would provide an easier route to Wins. Yes you will find that in North Carolina and Virginia. That I can understand.

Me? I would love for OU to be in the SEC. SEC is the best, why not want to play with the best? I am a Bama fan too, and have been to 5-6 games in Tuscaloosa and the Cotton Bowl against Texas Tech. The experience I had at the OU/ Bama game in 2003 was the best. Classiest fans, great campus, great band, great stadium, it was the most fun I have ever had at a College Football game. The passion of the SEC is unmatched. Who would not want to be a part of that?
The problem with ou is okie lite. It was very clear when ou threatened to move elsewhere that no one was interested because okie lite was a part of the deal. Ou is concerned about two things 1) keeping Texas and 2) keeping the most one sided rivalry in college football. Neither is in the sec's best interests. Texas would cause so many political problems and okie lite is a lesser possible addition than vt,nc schools, and wv. Ou by themselves is a great addition, but ou comes with a price that no one really wants to deal with.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
It is still a good idea, even with that in mind. Consider that the best schools in the SEC would split out into two separate conferences. Just as many of the "power" SEC tams would make the new playoff scheme proposed in GrayTide's post - maybe more.

If we are going to have a playoff while making EVERY regular season game count, this is as good an idea as I have seen.
He was saying a 9 game 10 team conference without a championship. That's 5 games on the road in sec play every other year. Someone is going to get stuck with a ridiculous schedule that spells 3 or more losses. I will level and say I miss UGA being on a 4 year rotation but I prefer championships over marquee games. TOSU and Oklahoma suffered without a championship in that round robin schedule. Championship games are big for the cfp. Ask tcu
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
One thing: It doesn't really matter if North Carolina cares about college football. The potential TV sets are all that really matters.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
Not that it matters, but I have been against expansion from the start going back to the inclusion of USCe and Arkansas into the SEC. This whole topic really is about the change in college football which IMO has been somewhat mixed since the SEC expansion in 1992. This entire discussion is pointless since we all know that money is the prime driver in everything that is done in college athletics.
 

champions77

Scout Team
Sep 6, 2006
149
0
0
Norman, Ok
The problem with ou is okie lite. It was very clear when ou threatened to move elsewhere that no one was interested because okie lite was a part of the deal. Ou is concerned about two things 1) keeping Texas and 2) keeping the most one sided rivalry in college football. Neither is in the sec's best interests. Texas would cause so many political problems and okie lite is a lesser possible addition than vt,nc schools, and wv. Ou by themselves is a great addition, but ou comes with a price that no one really wants to deal with.
That we would not go without Lite is a common perception, heck our President said as much when the invitation was issued. Since that time I have talked to many people who I consider excellent sources who have told me that saying that was just an excuse, our President doesn't give a hill of beans about Okie Lite. But the fact that Texas was not invited or we were concerned about losing that game, which is a huge money maker for OU, was the real reason.

Today, I think OU has arrived at a point where being Texas's lap dog is no longer tolerable. I mean they ran off Arky from the SW Conference, they played a huge role in running off Nebraska and A&M, and to a lesser degree Mizzou. EVERYTHING Texas does is for the University of Texas. Compromise is not in their DNA. If we want to maintain a presence in Dallas Texas every fall, I'm sure A&M would work out something with us. I also believe that in the pursuit of donations for our current stadium expansion, that a lot of BMD's told Boren and our AD that they are not too excited about the kind of schedules the Big XII is turning out. Boren called Texas out last week in a Daily Oklahoman article saying that we would have a Conference Network if it weren't for them. Went on to say that they are a PROBLEM. Really surprised to hear him say that, because no one calls out the University of Texas, and the ones that did.....are no longer in the Big XII Conference.

Where all of this goes is anyone's guess. I, like a lot of other OU fans, does not like the Big XII. It is a diminished brand, being neither Big, nor 12. RTR
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Regarding Oklahoma - as I recall the big problem was Okie State, which does NOT have a national following, was supposedly joined at the hip with OU. I don't know if that is actually true since I don't keep up with it, but I do recall that being alleged at the time.

And there was no need for a 16-team conference, either.

I don't have any problem per se with OU in the SEC but oh well what I've thought hasn't mattered anyway.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
When all of the conference realignment banter was going on in 2010 and 2011, you were always the one that called out OU as a tiny state, not enough TV sets and the SEC would never ask OU to be in the SEC. Well I guess Mike Slive never got the memo, as we all know now that Texas A&M and OU were originally invited.
There seems to be some confusion, I was one of the people that said the SEC apparently flirted with Oklahoma, I never once said the SEC would never add them, I simply said they would be a horrible addition. Having said that, I don't know exactly what Slive did but all along I've said that would have been a bad move, and that possibility is one reason I have doubted Slive's abilities. You seem to have mixed a few pertinent facts up either way though. But, I said during the initial round of expansion that the SEC could have Texas A&M and Missouri and that they should do that. They did that, and things worked out quite well.

I'll quote something I said elsewhere (back in 2012) though so we can be clear on my sentiments:
"I hope the SEC doesn’t get overly aggressive. They have a perfect option in Texas A&M but they still seem to be going after Oklahoma. Texas A&M is everything the SEC should want in a team. They are not a elite program right now, but have rivalries with Arkansas and LSU as well as a interesting history with Alabama. They’d fit in without being immediately disruptive. If they do ascend into a true football elite, they will do so as a member of the SEC. Oklahoma on the other hand is a bit redundant, would threaten to keep Texas A&M down in the division (as well as LSU and Auburn)"

KrAzy all those TV sets in North Carolina and Virginia don't do you any good if they aren't turned on. Plain and simple they are Professional Football states, their focus is on the Carolina Panthers and the Washington Redskins. Basketball is the sport that makes them turn on the TV for college sports, not football. ?
You seem to misunderstand what is driving expansion. Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Why does the Big 10 share more revenue than any other conference (including the SEC?). It's because they have states with larger populations, and they share more revenue from their networks. Network revenues are driven in large part by charging a higher rate for states which have a team in the respective conference. So, you add Rutgers, you add North Carolina, you add Missouri, you add Texas A&M, you get more money. It's pretty simple really. Also, yes basketball is a part of the SEC Network and the SEC's television package. In fact, basketball is really a huge part of a network's content package. The fact that you seem to be looking at this as only being about football shows that you don't seem to be taking all of this into account.

North Carolina generates a ton of revenue from basketball to, they are #2 in the ACC in revenue (FSU is first) and Virginia is #3. So, those football programs might not be huge earners (not everyone can win their conference football games though), and their fans might not be absolutely die hard, but they're worth more than just the TV sets.

Me? I would love for OU to be in the SEC.
Beyond the obvious financial reasons, though... I do have my own selfish reasons for not wanting Oklahoma in the SEC and that is because it would just be absolutely ridiculous. The SEC West was insane last year, Alabama had the #2 SoS, and it was only #2 because they didn't play themselves. It's insane to say yeah, that should have been harder, which is what anyone who actually thinks Oklahoma belongs is saying. Let's go back to the playoff someone came up with in which the SEC has 6 of the top 13 teams, sure let's make it 7, why not? But, how many two loss SEC teams did we see in the playoff? They didn't get any bonus points because of an absurdly difficult schedule.

Bottom line though... Oklahoma is a bad addition. Like laughably bad at this point now that the SEC has a network. Texas A&M was a ridiculously good addition. Missouri, with a population of 6 million was a solid addition. Oklahoma with a population of 3.8 million? What would they add of value again? They're good at football? Uhh... there's no need to improve there for the SEC. I can see why they'd love to join the SEC, but if there ever was a chance that ship seems to have sailed.

One thing: It doesn't really matter if North Carolina cares about college football. The potential TV sets are all that really matters.
You get it or you don't...
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
There seems to be some confusion, I was one of the people that said the SEC apparently flirted with Oklahoma, I never once said the SEC would never add them, I simply said they would be a horrible addition. Having said that, I don't know exactly what Slive did but all along I've said that would have been a bad move, and that possibility is one reason I have doubted Slive's abilities. You seem to have mixed a few pertinent facts up either way though. But, I said during the initial round of expansion that the SEC could have Texas A&M and Missouri and that they should do that. They did that, and things worked out quite well.

I'll quote something I said elsewhere (back in 2012) though so we can be clear on my sentiments:
"I hope the SEC doesn’t get overly aggressive. They have a perfect option in Texas A&M but they still seem to be going after Oklahoma. Texas A&M is everything the SEC should want in a team. They are not a elite program right now, but have rivalries with Arkansas and LSU as well as a interesting history with Alabama. They’d fit in without being immediately disruptive. If they do ascend into a true football elite, they will do so as a member of the SEC. Oklahoma on the other hand is a bit redundant, would threaten to keep Texas A&M down in the division (as well as LSU and Auburn)"



You seem to misunderstand what is driving expansion. Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Why does the Big 10 share more revenue than any other conference (including the SEC?). It's because they have states with larger populations, and they share more revenue from their networks. Network revenues are driven in large part by charging a higher rate for states which have a team in the respective conference. So, you add Rutgers, you add North Carolina, you add Missouri, you add Texas A&M, you get more money. It's pretty simple really. Also, yes basketball is a part of the SEC Network and the SEC's television package. In fact, basketball is really a huge part of a network's content package. The fact that you seem to be looking at this as only being about football shows that you don't seem to be taking all of this into account.

North Carolina generates a ton of revenue from basketball to, they are #2 in the ACC in revenue (FSU is first) and Virginia is #3. So, those football programs might not be huge earners (not everyone can win their conference football games though), and their fans might not be absolutely die hard, but they're worth more than just the TV sets.


Beyond the obvious financial reasons, though... I do have my own selfish reasons for not wanting Oklahoma in the SEC and that is because it would just be absolutely ridiculous. The SEC West was insane last year, Alabama had the #2 SoS, and it was only #2 because they didn't play themselves. It's insane to say yeah, that should have been harder, which is what anyone who actually thinks Oklahoma belongs is saying. Let's go back to the playoff someone came up with in which the SEC has 6 of the top 13 teams, sure let's make it 7, why not? But, how many two loss SEC teams did we see in the playoff? They didn't get any bonus points because of an absurdly difficult schedule.

Bottom line though... Oklahoma is a bad addition. Like laughably bad at this point now that the SEC has a network. Texas A&M was a ridiculously good addition. Missouri, with a population of 6 million was a solid addition. Oklahoma with a population of 3.8 million? What would they add of value again? They're good at football? Uhh... there's no need to improve there for the SEC. I can see why they'd love to join the SEC, but if there ever was a chance that ship seems to have sailed.


You get it or you don't...
Correct me if I'm don't get this right but the sec was looking at aTm, vt, and mizzou in that order when expansion looked possible. Vt then dropped out and aTm and mizzou made their intentions known. Mizzou got out of the big 12 smoothly because their contract was up, but Baylor tried to block aTm's early exit. I think it is here where ou started threatening Texas about leaving due to the lhn and the commissioner. From my understanding the sec flirted with ou but ou turned the sec down because of academic prestige, and thought the PAC 12 would welcome them in open arms. If that part is true the. Why should the sec even consider them when a North Carolina or Virginia school would bring in way more money?
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.