Here we go again: Expansion carousel

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
If Texas and Oklahoma bolt then TCU, Baylor, TTU and the other Big 12 schools will have to add 4 more programs or be content to join CUSA, MNW or some other lower tier conference.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,040
905
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
Remember this: Texas will never join the Pac12, Big 10, SEC or ACC UNLESS they give up their LHN, and they will NOT do that. That leaves them with the option of going independent and playing a five game schedule (a la Notre Dame) in the MWC or the AAC.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,295
31,347
187
South Alabama
I think Oklahoma, and perhaps some conferences are still stuck in the pre-network era, and not just that but in an era in which recruiting itself was different. Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Michigan, it was a given that programs like these would be amongst the best. It takes more than just having a "brand" now.



I think it was a huge mistake to do what Oklahoma did, and what Oklahoma did should be pointed out here (again). The Big 8 headquarters were in Missouri, Oklahoma played Nebraska annually. There's no real reason Oklahoma should have allowed Texas to come in, take away their game with Nebraska, move the headquarters to Texas and so on. Remember, Texas was coming off of destroying one conference, but Oklahoma clearly sided with Texas and has that made Oklahoma any better? It doesn't seem to but it's no longer clear that Oklahoma is really worth much without Texas. At least Oklahoma State has someone who is insanely rich backing them, Oklahoma has... Texas.


Absolutely correct, the fact is that had the Pac-12 deal happened, there would have been no Big 12. With Nebraska headed to the Big 10, and the deal on the table for 6 teams to join the Pac-12 they would have simply voted to disband to avoid any penalties for leaving the conference. As to why things reached that point, well the last paragraph alludes to that, but keep in mind that it was another instance in which Texas was ready, willing, and able to screw over programs like Kansas and Missouri.





.

Virginia Tech is tricky, because it is a big state, but they're a newcomer as a football power really. They are nowhere near Virginia as an athletic program, they make far less money and the product in other sports is vastly inferior. Either they continue their success in football, in which case the SEC just made things even tougher, or they fall off on football and they become another Miss. State, which doesn't sound all that appealing to me.

To me, the best potential expansion candidates would remain Notre Dame (special case, they have such national prestige that their membership would insure the SEC always commanded proper respect in any dialogue, besides they're in a good sized state and command attention in several northern states, extremely unlikely though), North Carolina (they are a basketball power, which would bolster the SEC Network, but they're also the #2 earner in the ACC, big state, decent football attendance, no downside at all), Virginia (the least as a football program, but still big state, #3 earner in the ACC, decent attendance, they'd be more than a consolation prize). I just don't see expanding without one of those programs on the hook. After that you can look at North Carolina State, Duke, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, but the question is if there's enough of a reward for any of those programs to warrant the cost of expansion? I'm not even 100% on Virginia much less those programs...







Decent analysis, it's hard to argue too compellingly against a tandem of NC State and Virginia Tech and State supports their football program better than many realize. I still think there's a bit of a risk in taking the lesser programs in a state though. With Texas A&M, it was such a huge state and such a rich program that it wasn't much of a risk, but we're talking about a smaller pie here though. I'm not sure if they're quite enough to make them the final pieces in an expanded conference, and it feels a bit like low hanging fruit. If the SEC can't get North Carolina (or the really long-shot Notre Dame), I'm not so sure they shouldn't stand pat.
A lot of people seem to think Nebraska came up with the idea to fight the Longhorn network, but it was actually Missouri. If Missouri's contract didnt have one more year left on it then Nebraska would be either a Pac 12 or SEC school, and Missouri would be a Big 10. Im happy that it turned out the way it did, with the exception of Missouri being in the east.

My only reason for VT is because you would gain the Virginia and DC markets. Its like Missouri to a smaller degree in that the SEC gained the KC and STL markets. I think to gain VT the SEC would need to gain one of the NC or Florida schools.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
Nobody should give a damn what texas does or doesn't do, as for oklahoma I feel pretty much the same way. I pretty much agree with KrAzY and other posters who feel the SEC should look east if further expansion takes place. As I said in an earlier post Duke, UNC and UVA are all a long shot. I would be comfortable in adding NC State and Va Tech both good, not great, football programs in new and growing markets.
 

champions77

Scout Team
Sep 6, 2006
149
0
0
Norman, Ok
FROM KRAZY, "I think it was a huge mistake to do what Oklahoma did, and what Oklahoma did should be pointed out here (again). The Big 8 headquarters were in Missouri, Oklahoma played Nebraska annually. There's no real reason Oklahoma should have allowed Texas to come in, take away their game with Nebraska, move the headquarters to Texas and so on. Remember, Texas was coming off of destroying one conference, but Oklahoma clearly sided with Texas and has that made Oklahoma any better? It doesn't seem to but it's no longer clear that Oklahoma is really worth much without Texas. At least Oklahoma State has someone who is insanely rich backing them, Oklahoma has... Texas."

Krazy you make some valid points. OU did vote alongside Texas on a lot of the issues that came before the schools when the BIG XII was being formed. But you make it sound like OU was the only one that voted for Texas. Obviously it would take OU and two others to get to the 7-5 vote to gain a majority in voting on the various issues that came up. The problems with the BIG XII began when Texas was allowed to get their way on most every item that came up. That sense of authority and privilege that was afforded Texas set a very bad precedent that would influence future decision making in the Big XII. That and some very weak Presidents that kowtowed to Texas's every demand remains today. Never has the Conference schools been on an equal footing. Texas has always demanded they be treated "differently".

I think your disdain for OU comes out when you state that "it is no longer clear whether OU is really worth much without Texas" If you are referring to the State of Texas as to recruiting great football players, I would agree with you. If you are stating that OU can't do anything without being dragged along by Texas's coattails, I think you are wrong. I think we are about to find out how much we are worth because I believe OU has about had enough of The University of Texas. And yes, we do have options. And those options far outweigh anything that Oklahoma State would have. Gosh I don't recall Mike Slive wanting osu when Boren asked him if osu was invited. Starting to think you are not a big Mike Slive fan. I mean he went out and invited OU three years ago. Have you ever asked him why, I know you are curious as to what the attraction was?

I'm sure that OU, even though we exist in a "Tiny State", can come up with something that is in our best interests. It is becoming more evident that coexisting in a Conference with UT is no longer such a good thing. After losing the Texas A&M rivalry, and before that Arkansas, and the prospect of losing the annual game with OU, you might see real soon how much Texas needs OU instead of OU needing Texas. Texas, with their demands of special treatment, LHN and reputation of running schools off, may be the ones that need OU, and the BIG XII.
 
Last edited:

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,295
31,347
187
South Alabama
"I think it was a huge mistake to do what Oklahoma did, and what Oklahoma did should be pointed out here (again). The Big 8 headquarters were in Missouri, Oklahoma played Nebraska annually. There's no real reason Oklahoma should have allowed Texas to come in, take away their game with Nebraska, move the headquarters to Texas and so on. Remember, Texas was coming off of destroying one conference, but Oklahoma clearly sided with Texas and has that made Oklahoma any better? It doesn't seem to but it's no longer clear that Oklahoma is really worth much without Texas. At least Oklahoma State has someone who is insanely rich backing them, Oklahoma has... Texas."

Krazy you make some valid points. OU did vote alongside Texas on a lot of the issues that came before the schools when the BIG XII was being formed. But you make it sound like OU was the only one that voted for Texas. Obviously it would take OU and two others to get to the 7-5 vote to gain a majority in voting on the various issues that came up. The problems with the BIG XII began when Texas was allowed to get their way on most every item that came up. That sense of authority and privilege that was afforded Texas set a very bad precedent that would influence future decision making in the Big XII. That and some very weak Presidents that kowtowed to Texas's every demand remains today. Never has the Conference schools been on an equal footing. Texas has always demanded they be treated "differently".

I think your disdain for OU comes out when you state that "it is no longer clear whether OU is really worth much without Texas" If you are referring to the State of Texas as to recruiting great football players, I would agree with you. If you are stating that OU can't do anything without being dragged along by Texas's coattails, I think you are wrong. I think we are about to find out how much we are worth because I believe OU has about had enough of The University of Texas. And yes, we do have options. And those options far outweigh anything that Oklahoma State would have. Gosh I don't recall Mike Slive wanting osu when Boren asked him if osu was invited. Starting to think you are not a big Mike Slive fan. I mean he went out and invited OU three years ago. Have you ever asked him why, I know you are curious as to what the attraction was?

I'm sure that OU, even though we exist in a "Tiny State", can come up with something that is in our best interests. It is becoming more evident that coexisting in a Conference with UT is no longer such a good thing. After losing the Texas A&M rivalry, and before that Arkansas, and the prospect of losing the annual game with OU, you might see real soon how much value OU brings to the table without Texas. Or Texas, with their demands of special treatment, LHN and reputation of running schools off, might find that they may be the ones that need OU, and the BIG XII.
On decisions in the Big 12 before expansion. Kansas, ISU, Baylor and TTU would always vote for Texas because there arent many conferences intrested in them so there are 5 votes there. Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado will most likely vote together. Okie Lite will vote for the side OU will vote. So even without KSU and aTm's vote you could have a majority if OU votes in favor of Texas.

Flash forward to now. You have Baylor,TCU,WV,TTU,Kansas,and ISU voting in favor of Texas. that is a majority without even considering OU. So it begs the question why would OU openly agree on letting Texas dictate their future? The only logical explanation is because OU knows that without Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas they have nothing. OU openly accepted that fact by agreeing to remain in a conference that consisted of Texas,them, a few teams that are good every now and then, and conference USA level programs. So in the next few years OU needs to choose between A) joining the Pac 12 B) joining the SEC or C) play second fiddle to Texas until they decide to leave everyone standing at the alter when Texas tries to con someone else into investing in them.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
43
kraizy.art
To clarify my take on things, the end game still seems to be four 16 team conferences. There's a lot of people that don't want that, but we've been slowly inching our way towards that. The SEC, Big 10, ACC all have 14, the Pac-12 has 12, and the Big 12 has 10. That means one conference could be consumed entirely. So, when I look at things, I see 16 as the final stop. The last negotiation in years with ESPN, the move to 9 conference games, once a conference goes to 16 that's probably the end of the line so those additions have to really be the right ones.

Here's the top targets (for the SEC) and how I view them:

Notre Dame:
I first brought this up before their BCSCG season, and a lot of the responses I got were along the lines of Notre Dame being irrelevant. However, we saw just how much media attention they got, how they even had a completely unwarranted Heisman candidate. The fact is they have the kind of national appeal that a lot of other programs wish or imagine they had. They even got a special seat at the table when it came to the playoff, that's how it works.

It's not just prestige though. They are in a good size state, they do have a solid athletics program, and their reach extends beyond their state. They are popular in states like New Jersey and Illinois as well. They are the big prize that's left. I think they're one of the reasons that the Big 10 is staying at 14, no one on the east coast really wants to go to 16 teams while Notre Dame is still somewhat of a free agent.

North Carolina:
They're in a big state, but they are no Rutgers (Rutgers is 47% subsidized). Their program stands on its own merits and they are without a doubt one of the top basketball brands. This is one area the SEC could stand to improve. They'd add tremendous value to the SEC Network, but do you think CBS or ESPN is going to complain about airing North Carolina basketball games? The fact that North Carolina isn't great in football (though their attendance is solid) isn't a minus to me either. They'd make the SEC better without being disruptive, the ideal addition. They're also #2 in the ACC in revenue and overall the best brand in the state.

Virginia:
It's hard for me to be super enthusiastic about Virginia. They are in a big state, but not as big as North Carolina. They are #3 in the ACC in revenue, but they lack the national appeal that North Carolina has. They would be a solid addition though, I mean look at what their baseball team just did. They'd add quality content to the SEC Network, while adding a lot of TV sets. And, they are the top college in the state, whether they win in football or not, they'll still remain valuable.

South Carolina was nowhere near the top school in that state. They've done pretty well. Good analysis, though.
Valid point, and... if I had to pick between, say Kansas and Oklahoma (both strong brands) and NC State and Virginia Tech, I'm going with State and Tech. However, this isn't just about the SEC either. If the SEC added those two, there's a decent chance the Big 10 would step in and add North Carolina and Virginia, and the Big 12 might even snag FSU and Clemson. Perhaps that's a fight that the SEC would win in the long run, but it would be a loss in the short term.

Remember this: Texas will never join the Pac12, Big 10, SEC or ACC UNLESS they give up their LHN, and they will NOT do that. That leaves them with the option of going independent and playing a five game schedule (a la Notre Dame) in the MWC or the AAC.
The network is a mess though, but it does represent a kind of genius for ESPN. For instance, the Pac-12 wants Texas, ESPN can step in and say, we need a piece of your network (in return the Pac-12 would get infrastructure support), and ESPN can even guarantee Texas at least the same annual payout. I think if Texas doesn't lose money, it would be hard for them to stand by their crappy network at this point.

My only reason for VT is because you would gain the Virginia and DC markets. Its like Missouri to a smaller degree in that the SEC gained the KC and STL markets. I think to gain VT the SEC would need to gain one of the NC or Florida schools.
I think Oklahoma is a bad addition for the SEC. I can't go that far with VT, I'm just wary. My fear with VT is that they quickly become irrelevant in football (remember they've only had success under one coach and their athletic program otherwise.... well they've literally never won a single championship in anything other than bass fishing). I don't want another Miss. State, but I do recognize the value in the state. I prefer Virginia simply because even if they suck in football they're still worth a lot to the conference, but either way I see the logic to expanding in Virginia.

As I said in an earlier post Duke, UNC and UVA are all a long shot. I would be comfortable in adding NC State and Va Tech both good, not great, football programs in new and growing markets.
That's true, I guess it's kind of like marriage. Some guys wait forever, because they think they can find the perfect woman, and just won't settle. Some guys get married earlier and just go for the best that they can get at the time. It's kind of a gamble as to what ends up working out best. Personally, I think the SEC doesn't need to do anything so standing pat isn't hurting them.

Don't think we have to worry about the Big 12 expanding. Texas Tech President Duane Nellis released this statement...
Interesting statement and I guess it plays into the Oklahoma overplaying their hand narrative. Oklahoma isn't happy, I guess that part is clear.

I think your disdain for OU comes out when you state that "it is no longer clear whether OU is really worth much without Texas" If you are referring to the State of Texas as to recruiting great football players, I would agree with you. If you are stating that OU can't do anything without being dragged along by Texas's coattails, I think you are wrong.
You make some points that I agree with. It seems Oklahoma is having some regret for the position they've put themselves in, and well... Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and Texas A&M all left, so part of it is Oklahoma ends up looking like they're "standing by their man" so to speak whether or not that's their intention.

As to Oklahoma as a program, some Stoops quotes aside I have no issue with their program. Other than that, I'm probably most angry with them for losing to those loudmouth wannabes Boise State. I just don't think they're a good fit for the SEC, and honestly I think it might go both ways. Is the SEC West really a hospitable place for another football power? I'm not so sure. Contrast that with say the ACC, who could really use a football power, and would provide a lot of easy wins and even that place seems like a better marriage.

My gut though... tells me that the Texas relationship will continue. I think Texas and Oklahoma eventually join the Pac-12, or they manage to hold the Big 12 together. But, what ever happens, it's not that I think Oklahoma is worthless. They are a very successful, valuable program and no matter what they'll end up in a major conference of course. I just think they're redundant for the SEC.
 

champions77

Scout Team
Sep 6, 2006
149
0
0
Norman, Ok
On decisions in the Big 12 before expansion. Kansas, ISU, Baylor and TTU would always vote for Texas because there arent many conferences intrested in them so there are 5 votes there. Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado will most likely vote together. Okie Lite will vote for the side OU will vote. So even without KSU and aTm's vote you could have a majority if OU votes in favor of Texas.

Flash forward to now. You have Baylor,TCU,WV,TTU,Kansas,and ISU voting in favor of Texas. that is a majority without even considering OU. So it begs the question why would OU openly agree on letting Texas dictate their future? The only logical explanation is because OU knows that without Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas they have nothing. OU openly accepted that fact by agreeing to remain in a conference that consisted of Texas,them, a few teams that are good every now and then, and conference USA level programs. So in the next few years OU needs to choose between A) joining the Pac 12 B) joining the SEC or C) play second fiddle to Texas until they decide to leave everyone standing at the alter when Texas tries to con someone else into investing in them.
'81 The OU/Texas game raises lot of money for OU, gives OU great exposure in Dallas every year where we recruit a lot of athletes and where a lot of our big money donor's live. People forget that OU is closer to Dallas than Austin is. Because of that and being in the same conference guaranteed that game being played, are reasons why we became I hate to say, Texas's lapdog. But, I believe a lot has transpired in the last year or two that makes OU feel that an association with Texas, and to an extent the BIG XII, at least as the BIG XII is today, is not in OU's best interest. Or maybe we are just tired of putting up with their arrogance and demands that they get their way. Like I posted earlier, this deal got off to a bad start in 1995-96 when the conference was being formed, and it continues to this day. I can't tell you outside of the LHN what has gotten OU upset with Texas. It maybe something behind the scenes that no one outside of the Commish or the Presidents and ADs could tell you.
As to geography, culture, politics, I really think the SEC is a great fit for OU. Heck Norman is SOUTH of five SEC schools today. We will see where this goes in time I guess.
Roll Tide!!
 

CullmanTide

Hall of Fame
Jan 7, 2008
6,614
885
137
Cullman, Al
but which one do you want? UNC and Duke would be the biggest possible, but NC State and Wake wouldnt be horrible.
North Carolina in a stand alone expansion. If adding 2, Either UNC or NC State along with either Virginia or VT. One intriguing addition would be Navy instead of a Virginia school but it wont happen.
 

CullmanTide

Hall of Fame
Jan 7, 2008
6,614
885
137
Cullman, Al
'81 The OU/Texas game raises lot of money for OU, gives OU great exposure in Dallas every year where we recruit a lot of athletes and where a lot of our big money donor's live. People forget that OU is closer to Dallas than Austin is. Because of that and being in the same conference guaranteed that game being played, are reasons why we became I hate to say, Texas's lapdog. But, I believe a lot has transpired in the last year or two that makes OU feel that an association with Texas, and to an extent the BIG XII, at least as the BIG XII is today, is not in OU's best interest. Or maybe we are just tired of putting up with their arrogance and demands that they get their way. Like I posted earlier, this deal got off to a bad start in 1995-96 when the conference was being formed, and it continues to this day. I can't tell you outside of the LHN what has gotten OU upset with Texas. It maybe something behind the scenes that no one outside of the Commish or the Presidents and ADs could tell you.
As to geography, culture, politics, I really think the SEC is a great fit for OU. Heck Norman is SOUTH of five SEC schools today. We will see where this goes in time I guess.
Roll Tide!!
Oklahoma is a top 5 all time program but is not good for the SEC because they bring nothing the SEC doesn't already have.
 

deliveryman35

Hall of Fame
Jul 26, 2003
12,997
1,194
287
55
Gadsden, AL
First, let me say that I have a ton of respect for the OU program, as I think they are undisputably a top 5 all-time football power( if not top 3). That being said, I really think the OU/SEC train left the station 3 yrs ago when President Boren spurned mike slive's good faith offer to join by insisting on conditions we could not meet( package deal with okie st)and at the same time had some not very nice things to say about us. As I see it, Oklahoma has two options--stay put or seek membership in the PAC 12. As others have said, I think our next expansion in the sec will be eastward and include schools from the states of Virginia and North Carolina. There are more eyeballs in those states and they have longer and more traditional ties to the Deep South than Oklahoma--which is really more of a Midwestern state- does.
 
Last edited:

CullmanTide

Hall of Fame
Jan 7, 2008
6,614
885
137
Cullman, Al
First, let me say that I have a ton of respect for the OU program, as I think they are undisputably a top 5 all-time football power( if not top 3). That being said, I really think the OU/SEC train left the station 3 yrs ago when President Boren spurned mike slive's good faith offer to join by insisting on conditions we could not meet( package deal with okie st)and at the same time had some not very nice things to say about us. As I see it, Oklahoma has two options--stay put or join the PAC 12. As others have said, I think our next expansion in the sec will be eastward and include schools from the states of Virginia and North Carolina. There are more eyeballs in those states and they have longer and more traditional ties to the Deep South than Oklahoma--which is a Midwestern state- does.
I agree for Oklahoma it's Pac 12 or stay in the Big 12 but it will be with Texas in a package deal. They are tied to Texas now like it or not.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,295
31,347
187
South Alabama
North Carolina:
They're in a big state, but they are no Rutgers (Rutgers is 47% subsidized). Their program stands on its own merits and they are without a doubt one of the top basketball brands. This is one area the SEC could stand to improve. They'd add tremendous value to the SEC Network, but do you think CBS or ESPN is going to complain about airing North Carolina basketball games? The fact that North Carolina isn't great in football (though their attendance is solid) isn't a minus to me either. They'd make the SEC better without being disruptive, the ideal addition. They're also #2 in the ACC in revenue and overall the best brand in the state.

Virginia:
It's hard for me to be super enthusiastic about Virginia. They are in a big state, but not as big as North Carolina. They are #3 in the ACC in revenue, but they lack the national appeal that North Carolina has. They would be a solid addition though, I mean look at what their baseball team just did. They'd add quality content to the SEC Network, while adding a lot of TV sets. And, they are the top college in the state, whether they win in football or not, they'll still remain valuable.



Valid point, and... if I had to pick between, say Kansas and Oklahoma (both strong brands) and NC State and Virginia Tech, I'm going with State and Tech. However, this isn't just about the SEC either. If the SEC added those two, there's a decent chance the Big 10 would step in and add North Carolina and Virginia, and the Big 12 might even snag FSU and Clemson. Perhaps that's a fight that the SEC would win in the long run, but it would be a loss in the short term.





I think Oklahoma is a bad addition for the SEC. I can't go that far with VT, I'm just wary. My fear with VT is that they quickly become irrelevant in football (remember they've only had success under one coach and their athletic program otherwise.... well they've literally never won a single championship in anything other than bass fishing). I don't want another Miss. State, but I do recognize the value in the state. I prefer Virginia simply because even if they suck in football they're still worth a lot to the conference, but either way I see the logic to expanding in Virginia.


.


.
I think VT is far more likely than Virginia. Virginia is actually one of the more important schools in the ACC, and VT is more like MSU. I also think VT would be very open to going to SEC if the SEC snagged a North Carolina school or Miami from the SEC, but if the SEC didnt get an ACC school it is highly doubtful that VT would be interested. Also VT will probably want Thursday Night football added to the SEC contract. So that could be a big deal breaker.

I still think the home run additions would be UNC and Duke primarily because the SEC would own 3 of the 4 biggest basketball programs.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
Haven't read every single post, so I apologize if someone has already mentioned this...

UNC isn't very desirable to any conference until the NCAA makes its ruling over the academic scandal.
 

deliveryman35

Hall of Fame
Jul 26, 2003
12,997
1,194
287
55
Gadsden, AL
O
I think VT is far more likely than Virginia. Virginia is actually one of the more important schools in the ACC, and VT is more like MSU. I also think VT would be very open to going to SEC if the SEC snagged a North Carolina school or Miami from the SEC, but if the SEC didnt get an ACC school it is highly doubtful that VT would be interested. Also VT will probably want Thursday Night football added to the SEC contract. So that could be a big deal breaker.

I still think the home run additions would be UNC and Duke primarily because the SEC would own 3 of the 4 biggest basketball programs.
Getting unc/ duke would be a coup, but I just don't see it happening. The acc will do whatever is necessary to keep it from happening. I think NC state and Va Tech is a more realistic possibility.
 

CullmanTide

Hall of Fame
Jan 7, 2008
6,614
885
137
Cullman, Al
81, Duke is currently on top of the mountain in basketball but they were nothing before Coach K and will likely be nothing when he's gone. They have little appeal in other sports. Two schools from one state diminishes the impact as far as TV's are concerned.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,295
31,347
187
South Alabama
81, Duke is currently on top of the mountain in basketball but they were nothing before Coach K and will likely be nothing when he's gone. They have little appeal in other sports. Two schools from one state diminishes the impact as far as TV's are concerned.
I bet people said the same thing about Kentucky when Rupp left. Duke is also a prestigous private University. They generate tons of money and have high academic standing. USC and Vandy show the benefits for conferences having private universities. If UNC is not an option then the SEC will most likely make Duke a top choice. This is ofcourse if the SEC is thinking of expanding in the first place.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
I do believe that the big 12 is on life support and it would behoove Oklahoma to make the best deal it can with the PAC 12. Those that want to stay with Texas and the big 12 will wind up being SOL.
 

CullmanTide

Hall of Fame
Jan 7, 2008
6,614
885
137
Cullman, Al
I bet people said the same thing about Kentucky when Rupp left. Duke is also a prestigous private University. They generate tons of money and have high academic standing. USC and Vandy show the benefits for conferences having private universities. If UNC is not an option then the SEC will most likely make Duke a top choice. This is ofcourse if the SEC is thinking of expanding in the first place.
There is simply no reason for the SEC to expand without North Carolina or at least NC State with a Virginia school. It makes no sense to add a Virginia school without one from North Carolina. The league is in great shape as it is but change may happen.
 

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.