Superconference Issues

[rgw]

Well, the biggest fear is if the Pac-10 can absorb the state of Texas paired with their solid foothold on California. It would give them the two of the three or four largest state TV audiences in the nation and a place in the Central timezone which will help television viewership. This is no good for the SEC.

Furthermore, this whole "we shouldn't have Texas because it would make the conference too hard" reeks of someone scared of change since we're on top. Change is coming and we should embrace the change that helps us best long term (getting the 4 schools with the biggest untapped media markets with reasonable proximity to the current conference) rather than running scared towards safe change (getting 4 schools that could never compete with Alabama in football on a consistent basis).

Look how the ACC's expansion turned out: they caught Miami at the end of an era, BC has done nothing special for their revenue despite being a big market because Boston doesn't care about college football, and VT has been the only school to do anything worthwhile but hasn't been a national title contender. Lets go after programs that we know will still have quality athletics decades from now. Miami was always too cheap to compete in modern football and their stranglehold on Miami high school athletes is diminished. BC has never been anything to write home about. It sounded good on paper: get Miami, the program of the last two decades, and Boston College to get into the New England market. The reality was: Miami is too cheap to put together a long-term athletics program; Boston College was only relevant when Doug Flutie was playing. The best team they got was VT and there is no guarantee what they will be after Beamer.

I agree that we should look at UNC and Duke but it's for the reason I've been talking about...we know that 20 years gone and these schools will still be top 5 programs in basketball. 20 years gone, we know Texas will still be a top program in football. When they're contributing to the bills, it eventually helps us all out. That's a fact. Florida and LSU wouldn't be what they are today without Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia shepherding this conference along with equal revenue sharing. I guess on second thought, we should have left the SEC so they would have never gotten any good! right?!

 

[KrAzY3]

Look how the ACC's expansion turned out: they caught Miami at the end of an era, BC has done nothing special for their revenue despite being a big market because Boston doesn't care about college football, and VT has been the only school to do anything worthwhile but hasn't been a national title contender.

Revisionist history? Miami and VT were both title contenders before the expansion. 1998-2002 saw a team now in the ACC in the BCS game every single year! 2003 saw Miami with a 11-2 record. In the first year of the ACC, VT won the conference and has 3 losses. It's been downhill from there pretty much.

Miami wasn't down until they joined the ACC! The Acc got the bright idea to add the two best teams from another conference and they have since consistently beat themselves up. Granted, the SEC is ahead of the ACC but OU and Texas are clearly ahead of Miami and VT. Let's go repeat what the ACC did, to get the best football teams from another comperable conference. I can't believe you'd use proof that adding top football teams is a bad idea as proof that you should add the best. You're right, the ACC took themselves out of contention by adding the top football programs from the Big East! It was a BAD IDEA! I knew it would turn out like that because you can't have too many teams at the top level of a conference, they will do no more than take each other out. Miami, Florida State, VT... those guys are not elite enough to step above the others but they are good enough to trip each other up. Now, let's put Florida, Alabama, Texas and OU together and in a few years we can talk about how some of those programs went downhill and how the SEC messed up by taking a program on the decline.

 

[deliveryman35]

If the SEC takes in Texas, OU, Okie St, and TAMU, then look for Texas/OU/LSU to battle it out every year in the new SEC West and us/Florida/Georgia to fight it out in the SEC East. And we get to play Florida every year!

 

[mikes12]

I'll be glad when all this speculation is ended and we can discuss what we think of whatever actual decision is made.

 

[GMacFan]

No one will ever replace the SEC. We have Alabama and Florida. We have Saban and Meyer. The Big 10 can never compete with that. We're in the freaking South. People here name their children after ball coaches. As long as we keep winning national championships, nothing another conference could do would matter.

 

[GMacFan]

If the SEC takes in Texas, OU, Okie St, and TAMU, then look for Texas/OU/LSU to battle it out every year in the new SEC West and us/Florida/Georgia to fight it out in the SEC East. And we get to play Florida every year!

This would mean Bama and Florida can't face eachother in the SECCG. Forget about it. Bama and Florida in the SECCG is a (relatively-new) tradition.

 

[MBA_99]

One point that has not been made is that root cause of the SEC's superiority is its fans. The state of Alabama is the best example; we should be a great market for a pro team but we are not because any effort following a pro team would take away from our religious preparation for Bama and AU football. So, the Big 10 could grow to 100 teams and Bama would still be one of 3-5 schools that can afford a Nick Saban, and blue chip kids would go here, mostly because of our fans. Our fans pack the stadium, and buy merchandise like crazy.

That said, I realize that while much of our cash flow comes from these sources, TV is a crucial piece of the financial pie. The problem with the hypothetical Big 100 would be that it would tie up all contracts with ESPN, NBC, CBS, etc. leaving less cash flow and exposure for the SEC. Lee and Kirk would not talk about SEC schools; they would talk about the schools that funded their network.

So, I believe that it isn't broke at all right now, but it could gradually deteriorate if other conferences muscle in on our TV deals. Do you think it's a coincidence that this is all happening the year after the SEC said, "Nice TV network, Big 10, look at our new contract with ESPN!"?

 

[Toss Sweep]

I think a big consideration to give this is where would Texas want to go? They have a sweet deal with the Big 12 now. But if it folds, would the Pac 10 give UTx a deal compareable to what they have now. The SEC wouldnt so would a "sweet" deal from the Pac 10 drive them that way?

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

OU's AD thinks the Big-12 will remain intact:

ESPN.com - Boren: Oklahoma to stay in Big 12

"I think there's a lot more smoke here than there is fire, in terms of the rumors about the Big 12," Boren said. "The demise of the Big 12 is greatly exaggerated. I expect it to stay probably completely intact, or very close to completely intact and in the worst-case scenario still a very strong conference."

 

[BamaFlum]

As someone else mentioned, this isn't just about football for the SEC. The SEC lags behind in basketball and while looking to expand football, we need to consider how a UL, UNC, Duke, etc. would add to the basketball side of things.

 

[TideEngineer08]

OU's AD thinks the Big-12 will remain intact:

ESPN.com - Boren: Oklahoma to stay in Big 12

I just think it's all a ploy by the Big 10/11 to get Notre Dame to join. Notre Dame is going to call their bluff (again) and I see the Big 10/11 adding 1 team to get a championship game and forever giving up the hope of getting Notre Dame to join.

Anything above 12 teams just seems too unwieldy to hold together.

 

[JD95]

OU's AD thinks the Big-12 will remain intact:

ESPN.com - Boren: Oklahoma to stay in Big 12

I think he's right IF Nebraska sticks with the Big XII. Supposedly the Big Ten has invited Missouri and Nebraska to jump ship. The Big XII could replace Missouri with a team like Boise State and never miss a beat -- perhaps even become more interesting. But Nebraska is the anchor for the entire Big XII North Division. Missouri, Kansas State, and Colorado have had some success in that division, and the Huskers have had a rough time since Tom Osbourne left, but they are the one elite, historical, marquee type of program in the Big XII North. If the Huskers jump ship, I think it all unravels for the Big XII and UT leads the other Texas schools (and perhaps also OU and Ok. State) into discussions with the Pac-10.

The best outcome for the SEC would be for the Big Ten to add just one team and everything else remains status quo. There are really no compelling expansion options for the SEC other than Texas. And adding Texas to an already murderous line-up presents problems of its own.

 

[Heavy D]

Bring in Louisville, Ga Tech, Clemson and FSU. The Divisions would be:

East
Florida
FSU
Georgia
Georgia Tech
South Carolina
Clemson
Louisville
Kentuckty

West
Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Miss St
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Vandy

You play your 7 division opponents with 2 rotating from the other division. You get 3 out of conference games.

Makes sense to me.

 

[BamaFlum]

The only good I see from all this conference talk would be having 4 super conferences break from the NCAA with a good TV deal, less red tape and more common sense governing rules, and 4 team play off: 4 conference championship games, 4 teams play, winners play for all the marbles.

 

[AngryMontana]

Conference expansion is the introduction of the BCS all over again. While it sounds fun and looks good on paper, confusion will ensue and we'll still be stuck sorting through the clutter as the experiments take place over a period of several years. The Bowl Championship Series has been in place for over a decade and still no one can gather a consencus concerning who should really be playing for the National Championship from year to year. It varies.

SEC teams already play eight conference opponents per year. Five or six on a consistant basis. The biggest problem with adding teams will be scheduling conflicts. Who, when, where, etc.

Example: Texas and Oklahoma (this is a stretch) join the SEC West. Who does Bama schedule in addition to AU, LSU, ARK, MSU, and OM? Both? One or the other? Neither? On top of those five, Bama always plays Tennessee plus two SEC East teams that rotate in and out from year to year. Eight SEC games in all. The competition is steep enough. Then there is the marquee non-conference match up(s) and a couple of cupcakes/breathers.

To adapt to an expansion the length of the season, in order to accomodate, would also have to be extended or expanded. Does that also mean a conference playoff is in order after the regular season to determine the best in each respective "Super Conference?" Or do teams just schedule 13-14 regular season games based on the number of teams per Super Conference?

In order to determine the best in the West and East of the SEC, each team should have to play each other in their respective divisions. If you ask me, the addition of one or two teams would call for an extended season. This is where the scheduling conflict comes into play.

While it's possible for a team to achieve a 16-0 record (14 regular season games, 1 conference championship, and 1 National Championship), is the risk or injury, fatigue and experimental purposes worth it? While possible, the probabilities are lesser than the possibilities.

Did I just answer my own inquiry? :conf2:

BTW, good to be here. :biga2: RTR!

 

[CapstoneTider]

Make sure that no state has three programs and if it has to come from another SEC state make sure it only has one team already, so Ga Tech comes to mind Florida State or Miami comes to mind and Louisville would be another good choice along with maybe Memphis.

And any non SEC state, try to get two teams, like Virginia Tech and wvu.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

Conference expansion is the introduction of the BCS all over again. While it sounds fun and looks good on paper, confusion will ensue and we'll still be stuck sorting through the clutter as the experiments take place over a period of several years. The Bowl Championship Series has been in place for over a decade and still no one can gather a consencus concerning who should really be playing for the National Championship from year to year. It varies.

SEC teams already play eight conference opponents per year. Five or six on a consistant basis. The biggest problem with adding teams will be scheduling conflicts. Who, when, where, etc.

Example: Texas and Oklahoma (this is a stretch) join the SEC West. Who does Bama schedule in addition to AU, LSU, ARK, MSU, and OM? Both? One or the other? Neither? On top of those five, Bama always plays Tennessee plus two SEC East teams that rotate in and out from year to year. Eight SEC games in all. The competition is steep enough. Then there is the marquee non-conference match up(s) and a couple of cupcakes/breathers.

To adapt to an expansion the length of the season, in order to accomodate, would also have to be extended or expanded. Does that also mean a conference playoff is in order after the regular season to determine the best in each respective "Super Conference?" Or do teams just schedule 13-14 regular season games based on the number of teams per Super Conference?

In order to determine the best in the West and East of the SEC, each team should have to play each other in their respective divisions. If you ask me, the addition of one or two teams would call for an extended season. This is where the scheduling conflict comes into play.

While it's possible for a team to achieve a 16-0 record (14 regular season games, 1 conference championship, and 1 National Championship), is the risk or injury, fatigue and experimental purposes worth it? While possible, the probabilities are lesser than the possibilities.

Did I just answer my own inquiry? :conf2:

BTW, good to be here. :biga2: RTR!

In the hypothetical event of two team expansion, we'd probably go to 9 conference games and keep the East/West rotation the same. The 12 game regular season would stay the same.

Welcome to the board.

 

[MVKTR2]

It's REAL SIMPLE. The SEC has to figure out if it's going to create a cable TV network like the the Big 10 Network. If they decide to the most important thing becomes access to markets where the 'SEC Network' can be attached to cable packages weather people want it or not, think C-Span, HGTV, MTV, Bravo, etc. Not everyone wants those but once it's part of the cable package people have to pay for it. If the SEC goes this route then expanding westward becomes more important and obvious. The addition of Tex, TexAM, TCU, & Houston would boost the SEC Network numbers somewhere north of Canada!

Conversely if the SEC decides against a network and wants to stand pat with strong ESPN/CBS deals then staying within the current geographical footprint makes a good bit of sense. Simply make good choices that add revenue or carry their own weight plus consider market size. Louisville makes a ton of sense in this scenario as does Clemson.

If I'm the commissioner it's as simple as making the decision of having or not having a conference based network and working from there. Whichever direction things go with a network the criteria in decending order go something like this:
1A-Fan Support
1B-Revenue
2-Market size
3-Do the schools fit culturally (IE Miami - no & Clemson - yes)
4-Decisions don't have to be perfect they just can't be the wrong ones!

Schlante & Roll Tide,
Phillip