SEC unanimously votes to extend membership invitations to Texas, Oklahoma

Joefus

Scout Team
Jan 3, 2021
111
85
37
Didn't want to start a new thread for this, but it is a good read about OSU:

That’s a lot of words to say we had a great recruiting class and think alabama won bc of their support staff so we hired ex head coaches too.
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,661
993
132
Georgia has never had to play a game at Kyle Field, that's kind of crazy.
Once the conference expanded above 12 it got hard to manage scheduling. Honestly if they do not find a better way to schedule them with this new expansion the east and west teams might as well be in different conferences for how often they will see each other.
 

BhamToTexas

2nd Team
Dec 25, 2020
315
345
77
Once the conference expanded above 12 it got hard to manage scheduling. Honestly if they do not find a better way to schedule them with this new expansion the east and west teams might as well be in different conferences for how often they will see each other.
Yeah I understand it got harder, but they have only played A&M one time. We have played Mizzou 3 times, twice at their place already in the same timespan.

And we have played every east team on the road in the last 10 years.
 
Last edited:

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
3,927
965
137
Once the conference expanded above 12 it got hard to manage scheduling. Honestly if they do not find a better way to schedule them with this new expansion the east and west teams might as well be in different conferences for how often they will see each other.
I much prefer 2 divisions. With PODS Bama will likely be saddled with one of the hardest schedules. The following is equal for all 16 members.

I posted the following a couple of weeks ago:

EastWest
1 Alabama1 Oklahoma
2 Georgia2 LSU
3 Florida3 Texas
4 Auburn4 Texas A&M
5 Tennessee5 Arkansas
6 Kentucky6 Missouri
7 South Carolina7 OM
8 Vanderbilt8 MSU

  • Expand to a 9 game SEC schedule
  • No permanent cross-division rivals. Alabama vs UTn and UGA vs AU are now division games and both LSU and UF are glad to terminate their annual game.
  • Annually play the 2 cross-division games like this: 1 & 8, 2 & 7, 3 & 6, 4 & 5. Therefore, you never get saddled with 2 additional elite programs in any year but everyone plays 1 elite program and 1 lesser annually. So, each program would play every other program at least once every 4 years.
  • This would mean that Bama plays only 5/12 (i.e., 5 more elite games per 12 years) of an elite program (UA, OU, LSU, UF, UTx, UGA, AU, A&M) per year more than they do now (Bama, LSU, UGA, UF, UTn, AU). I.e., the ramp up in scheduling difficulty is not nearly as great as many think. Also, Bama's new annual non-elites (UTn, UK, USCe, Vandy) are not as tough as now (A&M, Ark, OM, MSU). This assuming UTn remains non-elite and A&M is elite, along with OU and UTx. So IMO, this is the most advantageous arrangement for Alabama, as well as the fairest for everyone.
This way everyone plays the exact same schedule over 4 years. Thus, programs like Bama do not get saddled with taking the tougher cross-div rivals. (Though UTn is down now , UTn was the clear #2 program all-time and the current 1 or 2 program in the late 80s early 90s when the current arrangement was finalized. Bama and UTn should have been commended for agreeing to play the toughest available program but of course Bama gets criticized.)

It also maintains a bit of history and provides an accomplishment with winning a division and that matters to many programs.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
27,632
13,480
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I much prefer 2 divisions. With PODS Bama will likely be saddled with one of the hardest schedules. The following is equal for all 16 members.

I posted the following a couple of weeks ago:

EastWest
1 Alabama1 Oklahoma
2 Georgia2 LSU
3 Florida3 Texas
4 Auburn4 Texas A&M
5 Tennessee5 Arkansas
6 Kentucky6 Missouri
7 South Carolina7 OM
8 Vanderbilt8 MSU
  • Expand to a 9 game SEC schedule
  • No permanent cross-division rivals. Alabama vs UTn and UGA vs AU are now division games and both LSU and UF are glad to terminate their annual game.
  • Annually play the 2 cross-division games like this: 1 & 8, 2 & 7, 3 & 6, 4 & 5. Therefore, you never get saddled with 2 additional elite programs in any year but everyone plays 1 elite program and 1 lesser annually. So, each program would play every other program at least once every 4 years.
  • This would mean that Bama plays only 5/12 (i.e., 5 more elite games per 12 years) of an elite program (UA, OU, LSU, UF, UTx, UGA, AU, A&M) per year more than they do now (Bama, LSU, UGA, UF, UTn, AU). I.e., the ramp up in scheduling difficulty is not nearly as great as many think. Also, Bama's new annual non-elites (UTn, UK, USCe, Vandy) are not as tough as now (A&M, Ark, OM, MSU). This assuming UTn remains non-elite and A&M is elite, along with OU and UTx. So IMO, this is the most advantageous arrangement for Alabama, as well as the fairest for everyone.
This way everyone plays the exact same schedule over 4 years. Thus, programs like Bama do not get saddled with taking the tougher cross-div rivals. (Though UTn is down now , UTn was the clear #2 program all-time and the current 1 or 2 program in the late 80s early 90s when the current arrangement was finalized. Bama and UTn should have been commended for agreeing to play the toughest available program but of course Bama gets criticized.)

It also maintains a bit of history and provides an accomplishment with winning a division and that matters to many programs.
I do not favor quadrants or whatever we want to call them.

I love your plan, or no divisions. Although it seems you cannot do no divisions and have a championship game unless you do a round robin schedule. And that's obviously not possible with 16 teams.

So I favor 2 divisions with the exact alignment you have here.

My only change is do 10 conference games. We did it last year with no problems. And even when we inevitably slip a little when Coach Saban retires, I'd still prefer 10 SEC games rather than 2 or 3 UT Chattanooga's on the schedule.
 

deliveryman35

Hall of Fame
Jul 26, 2003
12,597
710
137
53
Gadsden, AL
I much prefer 2 divisions. With PODS Bama will likely be saddled with one of the hardest schedules. The following is equal for all 16 members.

I posted the following a couple of weeks ago:

EastWest
1 Alabama1 Oklahoma
2 Georgia2 LSU
3 Florida3 Texas
4 Auburn4 Texas A&M
5 Tennessee5 Arkansas
6 Kentucky6 Missouri
7 South Carolina7 OM
8 Vanderbilt8 MSU
  • Expand to a 9 game SEC schedule
  • No permanent cross-division rivals. Alabama vs UTn and UGA vs AU are now division games and both LSU and UF are glad to terminate their annual game.
  • Annually play the 2 cross-division games like this: 1 & 8, 2 & 7, 3 & 6, 4 & 5. Therefore, you never get saddled with 2 additional elite programs in any year but everyone plays 1 elite program and 1 lesser annually. So, each program would play every other program at least once every 4 years.
  • This would mean that Bama plays only 5/12 (i.e., 5 more elite games per 12 years) of an elite program (UA, OU, LSU, UF, UTx, UGA, AU, A&M) per year more than they do now (Bama, LSU, UGA, UF, UTn, AU). I.e., the ramp up in scheduling difficulty is not nearly as great as many think. Also, Bama's new annual non-elites (UTn, UK, USCe, Vandy) are not as tough as now (A&M, Ark, OM, MSU). This assuming UTn remains non-elite and A&M is elite, along with OU and UTx. So IMO, this is the most advantageous arrangement for Alabama, as well as the fairest for everyone.
This way everyone plays the exact same schedule over 4 years. Thus, programs like Bama do not get saddled with taking the tougher cross-div rivals. (Though UTn is down now , UTn was the clear #2 program all-time and the current 1 or 2 program in the late 80s early 90s when the current arrangement was finalized. Bama and UTn should have been commended for agreeing to play the toughest available program but of course Bama gets criticized.)

It also maintains a bit of history and provides an accomplishment with winning a division and that matters to many programs.


Would this plan allow for us to play every team within the conference at least every four years? If so, then I would support it. Saban has said that he favors that, and I agree with him on that point.
 

C2Ag93

New Member
Jul 25, 2021
23
69
22
A post mortem on the state of Texas football -- from a Texas source: https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/texas-college-football-religion/
As an Aggie and native Texan, that article just drips with the crap we have to deal with when being around the teasips. It is clearly written by a teasip homer. My take on several things:

1 - Couldn't disagree with that article's premise more: Translated from Teasipese: "Now that UTex has left the Big 12, UTex's actions have relevance to all of Texas college football". No one, outside the teasips, would understand that premise. The "state-centric" feel to college football died near the end of the SWC days (as early as the late 80s). We all knew it was dead some time before that, and Aggies had long wanted to join the SEC, were pressured into joining the Big 12 (or SWC mark 2) by the Texas legislature and governor. I was in college 1989 to 1993. Throughout my tenure, we knew the SWC, as a conference, couldn't compete with other conferences. Our games were too easy. We beat Utex 10 out of 11 years with the one loss being a "shocking upset" in Austin by a point. And Texas A&M was regularly winning the conference, but losing the bowl. Utex only enjoyed "conference office power", but we knew the conference was essentially dead and things needed to change for the conference itself to be more competitive. The teams inside the conference, including us, needed to be able to compete on a national scale better (to beat the best, you have to play the best). No, Utex leaving the Big 12 literally doesn't change a damn thing about Texas college football, but the horn homer can't see that. What they're really admitting is Utex simply doesn't have any special conference privileges anymore.

2 - Arrogance: Why the hell would a teasip national title redeem the state of Texas for the assassination of President Kennedy? Turns my stomach that someone would equate a football game to the assassination of the man that had the vision to send us to the Moon.

3 - Self-Centeredness: "These anti-UT rituals forged the Aggie faithful’s identity for generations. No matter the team’s record, success was defined by beating “TU” Until it wasn’t." I thought they learned with the Bonfire tragedy that our "rituals" really aren't about them. And the very fact that we left the Big 12 even at the risk of losing the rivalry game speaks volumes. We mention them in the War Hymn, they mention us in Texas Fight. We had Bonfire (now repurposed for LSU), they had a "Hex Rally". The rest of our traditions include Aggie Muster, Yells, the Aggie Band's marching style, Midnight Yell, Silver Taps, and many others, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with them. Only teasips thought we find our identity in them. The last 10 years should have proven otherwise. (On a side note, I do have to commend them still to this day for what their Band did for us during halftime of the Bonfire Game. Still moves me to tears when I see it.)

4 - Blame Game: "In 2011, A&M broke almost a century of Texas football history when the school announced it was joining the SEC." Translation in to English from Teasipese: "The Aggies didn't obey us", and "Texas football tradition is when Utex gets to call the shots". Although, I do agree with the author that "UT’s lust for money and power" and "UT’s continued push for greater shares of Big 12 revenue led to the divorce". With statements like this, it's no wonder Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri all wanted out of the "Big 12" as well.

5 - The author has no clue: "Midwestern slugfests paled in comparison to high-scoring Texas shootouts. And don’t even start with California football. But those days are no more." Um... Texas football for many, many years was "three yards and a cloud of dust." There were blow outs in the waning days of the SWC because the smaller schools like UH, TCU, SMU, etc., couldn't handle A&M and Utex. But the "high-scoring" track meets came in with the BDF.

The ending of that article is pure comedy.

About the only thing they got right in the article:

It turns out that A&M’s move to the SEC was the smart move, not UT’s bet on the Longhorn Network. Over the past decade, the Aggies have prospered while UT has watch those underfunded private schools Baylor and TCU claim three Big 12 Conference Championships to the Longhorns’ none. Not to mention OU claiming the other seven. Now UT has admitted defeat by spurning the Big 12 for the SEC. It turns out that UT needs A&M.
 
Last edited:

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
6,331
6,626
287
70
Charleston, South Carolina
As an Aggie and native Texan, that article just drips with the crap we have to deal with when being around the teasips. It is clearly written by a teasip homer. My take on several things:

1 - Couldn't disagree with that article's premise more: Translated from Teasipese: "Now that UTex has left the Big 12, UTex's actions have relevance to all of Texas college football". No one, outside the teasips, would understand that premise. The "state-centric" feel to college football died near the end of the SWC days (as early as the late 80s). We all knew it was dead some time before that, and Aggies had long wanted to join the SEC, were pressured into joining the Big 12 (or SWC mark 2) by the Texas legislature and governor. I was in college 1989 to 1993. Throughout my tenure, we knew the SWC, as a conference, couldn't compete with other conferences. Our games were too easy. We beat Utex 10 out of 11 years with the one loss being a "shocking upset" in Austin by a point. And Texas A&M was regularly winning the conference, but losing the bowl. Utex only enjoyed "conference office power", but we knew the conference was essentially dead and things needed to change for the conference itself to be more competitive. The teams inside the conference, including us, needed to be able to compete on a national scale better (to beat the best, you have to play the best). No, Utex leaving the Big 12 literally doesn't change a damn thing about Texas college football, but the horn homer can't see that. What they're really admitting is Utex simply doesn't have any special conference privileges anymore.

2 - Arrogance: Why the hell would a teasip national title redeem the state of Texas for the assassination of President Kennedy? Turns my stomach that someone would equate a football game to the assassination of the man that had the vision to send us to the Moon.

3 - Self-Centeredness: "These anti-UT rituals forged the Aggie faithful’s identity for generations. No matter the team’s record, success was defined by beating “TU” Until it wasn’t." I thought they learned with the Bonfire tragedy that our "rituals" really aren't about them. And the very fact that we left the Big 12 even at the risk of losing the rivalry game speaks volumes. We mention them in the War Hymn, they mention us in Texas Fight. We had Bonfire (now repurposed for LSU), they had a "Hex Rally". The rest of our traditions include Aggie Muster, Yells, the Aggie Band's marching style, Midnight Yell, Silver Taps, and many others, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with them. Only teasips thought we find our identity in them. The last 10 years should have proven otherwise. (On a side note, I do have to commend them still to this day for what their Band did for us during halftime of the Bonfire Game. Still moves me to tears when I see it.)

4 - Blame Game: "In 2011, A&M broke almost a century of Texas football history when the school announced it was joining the SEC." Translation in to English from Teasipese: "The Aggies didn't obey us", and "Texas football tradition is when Utex gets to call the shots". Although, I do agree with the author that "UT’s lust for money and power" and "UT’s continued push for greater shares of Big 12 revenue led to the divorce". With statements like this, it's no wonder Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri all wanted out of the "Big 12" as well.

5 - The author has no clue: "Midwestern slugfests paled in comparison to high-scoring Texas shootouts. And don’t even start with California football. But those days are no more." Um... Texas football for many, many years was "three yards and a cloud of dust." There were blow outs in the waning days of the SWC because the smaller schools like UH, TCU, SMU, etc., couldn't handle A&M and Utex. But the "high-scoring" track meets came in with the BDF.

The ending of that article is pure comedy.

About the only thing they got right in the article:

It turns out that A&M’s move to the SEC was the smart move, not UT’s bet on the Longhorn Network. Over the past decade, the Aggies have prospered while UT has watch those underfunded private schools Baylor and TCU claim three Big 12 Conference Championships to the Longhorns’ none. Not to mention OU claiming the other seven. Now UT has admitted defeat by spurning the Big 12 for the SEC. It turns out that UT needs A&M.
You are quite on target...thanks for your insightful post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dathbama

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
3,927
965
137
I do not favor quadrants or whatever we want to call them.

I love your plan, or no divisions. Although it seems you cannot do no divisions and have a championship game unless you do a round robin schedule. And that's obviously not possible with 16 teams.

So I favor 2 divisions with the exact alignment you have here.

My only change is do 10 conference games. We did it last year with no problems. And even when we inevitably slip a little when Coach Saban retires, I'd still prefer 10 SEC games rather than 2 or 3 UT Chattanooga's on the schedule.
I agree with you for the most part but not with the bolded conclusion because IMO there was a problem. The SEC ended with only 4 ranked teams, the fewest since 2009. UK (4-6), MSU (3-7), OM (4-5) finished with losing reg seasons, eliminating them from bowl contention in a "normal" season, then went to bowl games and beat ranked teams. To be fair, in a normal season they would have also played 2 OOC games that might have helped OM and UK towards a better record.

IMO, 9 games is going to be tough enough and 10 games will be suicide for many middle-tier and lesser programs. It could from time to time hurt an elite program. There does not have to be any UT Chat's on the schedule, just schedule P5s from other conferences.

Almost all rankers (AP, CFPC, et al.) can't help placing an inordinate value on W-L record. Look at Liberty, Coastal Carolina - they had no business being ranked where they were. Look at TCU and Utah after they went to P5 conferences, even the weakest ones (B12, P12). Put Boise State in the SEC and they would not be a 40% winning program, much less a 75% program.

IMO, the "Alliance" will help those 3 conferences and hurt the SEC in that they will not have to play SEC teams and thus worsen their record. Larry Scott admitted ~7 or 8 years ago that the reason the PAC12 had to play more PAC12 games is because they can't get people to attend or watch their games vs Fresno State, SD State, et al., whereas, the SEC can still pack a stadium for anyone (this is not as true anymore). I.e., their motivation was for money not "a higher level of competition". But also, the "Alliance's" incestuous scheduling allows them to avoid the SEC and yet accuse them of playing cupcakes by shutting them out of other P5s options. The hypocrites. And last year's UK, MSU and OM seasons confirms their "wisdom" in doing so. They are desperate for the SEC to cannibalize itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

Jack Bourbon

Hall of Fame
Aug 3, 2001
6,330
229
187
Chicago IL

““I think it is on life support now,” Gee told Montgomery. “I have one of the votes and I think it nearly needs to be unanimous, and I’m not voting for it. I think the Big Ten will not vote for it, and the Pac 12 will probably not vote for it either.”

I totally forgot about this guy. I guess he’s back. There are a couple of questionable/hilarious implications to his quotes.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TideEngineer08

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
27,632
13,480
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL

““I think it is on life support now,” Gee told Montgomery. “I have one of the votes and I think it nearly needs to be unanimous, and I’m not voting for it. I think the Big Ten will not vote for it, and the Pac 12 will probably not vote for it either.”

I totally forgot about this guy. I guess he’s back. There are a couple of questionable/hilarious implications to his quotes.
Morons.

I wonder how the commissioners of the group of five conferences think, as this 12 team playoff was finally their ticket in.

Just so they know, the SEC DOES NOT CARE.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
27,632
13,480
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I agree with you for the most part but not with the bolded conclusion because IMO there was a problem. The SEC ended with only 4 ranked teams, the fewest since 2009. UK (4-6), MSU (3-7), OM (4-5) finished with losing reg seasons, eliminating them from bowl contention in a "normal" season, then went to bowl games and beat ranked teams. To be fair, in a normal season they would have also played 2 OOC games that might have helped OM and UK towards a better record.

IMO, 9 games is going to be tough enough and 10 games will be suicide for many middle-tier and lesser programs. It could from time to time hurt an elite program. There does not have to be any UT Chat's on the schedule, just schedule P5s from other conferences.

Almost all rankers (AP, CFPC, et al.) can't help placing an inordinate value on W-L record. Look at Liberty, Coastal Carolina - they had no business being ranked where they were. Look at TCU and Utah after they went to P5 conferences, even the weakest ones (B12, P12). Put Boise State in the SEC and they would not be a 40% winning program, much less a 75% program.

IMO, the "Alliance" will help those 3 conferences and hurt the SEC in that they will not have to play SEC teams and thus worsen their record. Larry Scott admitted ~7 or 8 years ago that the reason the PAC12 had to play more PAC12 games is because they can't get people to attend or watch their games vs Fresno State, SD State, et al., whereas, the SEC can still pack a stadium for anyone (this is not as true anymore). I.e., their motivation was for money not "a higher level of competition". But also, the "Alliance's" incestuous scheduling allows them to avoid the SEC and yet accuse them of playing cupcakes by shutting them out of other P5s options. The hypocrites. And last year's UK, MSU and OM seasons confirms their "wisdom" in doing so. They are desperate for the SEC to cannibalize itself.
No doubt the path forward will have to be carefully navigated, by all parties. This can blow up for the "Alliance" as quickly as it can for the SEC. But when we are talking about value, there is immense value in a 10 game SEC schedule. There are only a few Alliance games that will move the needle. The obvious ones are already played: Ohio State v Michigan, USC v Notre Dame, etc. And the kinds of games that they could add to that list, such as Ohio State v USC or Michigan v Clemson, how many of those are these schools really going to want to schedule?

To me this Alliance is about butt hurt feelings over Texas/OU choosing the SEC. Rest assured had they chosen the Big Ten initially, we would all be having different conversations and there would be no Alliance. So it's some whiny admins who are clueless in their jobs and they've thrown this together without any foresight whatsoever, get in meetings with lawyers and realize there is no way to pull off what they want. Because effectively what they want is to block out the SEC or at least restrict their ability to dominate the environment.

I mean, can they simply form a voting bloc on all issues to vote opposite of the SEC on everything? Yet, how many of these universities fall on the side of the SEC on these issues? We already saw that during the Covid madness last year. Ohio State and Nebraska (and others mind you) broke ranks with Big Ten leadership. You know that the majority of the ACC sided with the SEC, hence why they remained in lockstep with the SEC.

This will not go the way they think it will. I do not say that out of arrogance. I say it out of the recognition of reality. As I said, though, all parties will have to tread with caution. I think the SEC is going to have to lay low at this point, so as not to trip the Alliance morons into madness and have them really screw everything up. Allow them to pitch their little playoff tantrum and stop the 12 team playoff. The SEC never wanted it anyway.