Superconference Issues

[bamaslammer]

From what I have read the SEC expects to remain atop the college football world (which I am all for). To that end its also my understanding that there are some major schools who might come into the SEC if the other .... ant conferences out there want to play hardball, (i.e. Texas, Fl State, etc...)

My topic is this, if the SEC absorbed two or more big time programs to maintain their position as the big Dog, would they then still require each division of the SEC to play round robin as they do now or would they start an on and off schedule of rotation.

The plus side of the round robin is that every school can play their way into the championship with no tie breakers needed, the negative side is that adding a Texas for instance to the west significantly adds to an already murderous schedule.

 

[CajunCrimson]

I think if we add anyone.......we'd do well to add:

Louisville (gives UK an instate rival)
Ga Tech (ditto for UGA) OR Clemson (ditto for USCe)
Florida State (ditto for UF)
TCU (give us access to the Dallas market).......and a more natural rival to LSU

if we go 14, let's go after Louisville and TCU
if we go 16, bring in the two ACC teams

 

[Honden]

I think that we would be better off solidifying the Florida recruiting grounds by inviting Fl St AND Miami.

All of this Texas talk is really just talk. I do not see UT and A&M making the move for any price.

I'm still not sold on the necessity to expand anyway. Didn't the WAC decide that 14 teams were too many to administer properly?

Will any of these additions actually cause revenue to rise enough that the existing member schools do not take a pay cut?

I guess I fall into the "If it aint broke don't fix it" crowd.

 

[adwillingham]

I would assume that if the SEC goes to 14 or 16 teams that a team will still play the other 6 or 7 teams in their division every year. Where teams now play 3 teams from the other division (1 fixed 2 rotating), I would assume this would drop to 2 (14 team SEC, 1 fixed 1 rotating, or 2 rotating 0 fixed) or 1 (16 team SEC, 1 rotating 0 fixed) from the other division.

The other route they could go is increase the number of conference games to 9 per team (from 8 today), which would still leave everyone with 3 non-conference games. If that occurred, nothing would have to change for the 14 team rotation, and the 16 team rotation would be the 7 teams in your own division and 2 from the other. I believe the Pac10 plays 9 conference games so that everyone plays each other every year.

I would be surprised if they put any plan in place that eliminated two teams in one division from playing each other.

 

[cjhadley]

I would assume that if the SEC goes to 14 or 16 teams that a team will still play the other 6 or 7 teams in their division every year. Where teams now play 3 teams from the other division (1 fixed 2 rotating), I would assume this would drop to 2 (14 team SEC, 1 fixed 1 rotating, or 2 rotating 0 fixed) or 1 (16 team SEC, 1 rotating 0 fixed) from the other division.

The other route they could go is increase the number of conference games to 9 per team (from 8 today), which would still leave everyone with 3 non-conference games. If that occurred, nothing would have to change for the 14 team rotation, and the 16 team rotation would be the 7 teams in your own division and 2 from the other. I believe the Pac10 plays 9 conference games so that everyone plays each other every year.

I would be surprised if they put any plan in place that eliminated two teams in one division from playing each other.

If they go to a 16 team conference they would play 9 conference games with 2 8 team divisions. each team will play the other 7 division teams plus 2 teams from the other division. It will be 1 fixed opponent and 1 rotating opponent. that way alabama vs tennessee and auburn vs georgia can still continue. the rotating opponent should be changed every year so that each team will play the other 7 teams in the other division once every 7 years. I think that the sec will expand east adding 4 teams from the acc and not go after any big 12 teams. I think they should go after fsu, nc state, va tech, and clemson and shift kentucky to the west and add fsu to the west.

 

[KrAzY3]

if we go 14, let's go after Louisville and TCU

I really can't argue with that too much. TCU is more of a handful than Louisville in football but I think the SEC could adsorb those teams without unseating the current top teams or losing revenue (TCU makes more than Texas Tech, Pitt, BYU and Ole Miss and Louisville makes more than Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Miami and FSU).

At this point I'm more worried that the SEC bites off more than it can chew (Texas and OU for example) then that they don't expand. I'm really hoping that if the conferences go to 14 or 16, the Pac-10 snatches up Texas, Texas A&M, OU and Oklahoma) and the SEC can pick over the ACC and what's left of the Big 12 if they want.

If they go to a 16 team conference they would play 9 conference games with 2 8 team divisions. each team will play the other 7 division teams plus 2 teams from the other division. It will be 1 fixed opponent and 1 rotating opponent.

Drop the rotating opponent, eliminate almost any chance of a SEC championship game rematch and you don't lengthen the SEC schedule. Easy to do, rivalries are preserved and the SEC championship game becomes bigger.

 

[ncbama]

It is insane to think of Louisville in the SEC!!! It just does does not have the cachet that Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech have. Add Louisville and the average is lowered. Add the latter three, or any combination thereof, and the average stays pretty much the same.

Miami has the reputation of being a "renegade" school. It is private with very, very limited fan base. Check out the attendance at their home games.


Better yet, as someone has already said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[KrAzY3]

It is insane to think of Louisville in the SEC!!! It just does does not have the cachet that Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech have.

Louisville makes more money than all of those except Clemson (and I think Clemson would be a great addition). Louisville has a built in rival and is in a existing SEC state, but to those that like talking about markets, Louisville is a sizable market and they are also on the border with Indiana. So, if money is a primary concern then Louisville needs to be a strong consideration. They would expand the SEC market and make enough money to pay their way.

Having said that, I do not want Texas (they are in my opinion too big to mesh with the SEC), OU (likely to unseat traditional SEC football powers, but they are not even the top earning college in the state), or Miami (a long drive to play a tough team with tepid support). However, if you eliminate those three teams I'm fairly open to a lot of the possibilities, particularly within the ACC.

 

[rgw]

Texas and TAMU would make more money in the SEC than the Big-XII or Pac-10; UT+TAMU would in turn make more money for everybody by making the SEC TV contract even more valuable to television broadcasters. We - the current SEC conference members - don't want to add people who ultimately take a little bit of cash off each of our revenue shares each year. At a bare minimum, we want to add someone who will add enough value to carry their own weight towards the revenue share (a zero-sum addition for the current members basically).

Realistically, the current conference members want to add someone who makes us all richer for the addition. I don't see how taking a bunch of mid-tier teams that fit in our current regional footprint will do that for the current members. GT isn't going to be a bread winner, neither will Clemson. Florida State and Louisville have potential but they aren't the big prize out there. The big prize is right next to our Western perimeter: the two biggest state schools in Texas. Texas is a huge TV market that we can solidly capture with just Texas and TAMU. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the real business world.

Texas might say they want to have some academically-lifting conference association but at the end of the day it's about dollars and sense...the Big Ten and SEC make the most dollars and sense for Texas and TAMU. After adding those two, I think Clemson, Louisville, Florida State, Duke, UNC, and Georgia Tech will be in the running to fill the final two spots. I prefer to strengthen the basketball component some since UT+TAMU solidifies our football product as the best no matter what else happens on the college landscape. I wouldn't be surprised if we try to go West completely with UT, TAMU, OU, and Oklahoma State though either.

 

[KrAzY3]

Let's cut the crap... all financial concerns for the SEC or Alabama are secondary to me. Let's be clear on that. I really don't care if the University is wealthy or not, that's a indirect concern. I do, however care greatly about their sports programs and in particular their football program. I only want them to do well financially to the extent that they can properly fund their sports programs. I also believe the university is better off acting in their immediate interest than in a attempt to share the revenue of a program like Texas.

Texas is a football power. They have a massive recruiting base. They are not just going to roll over if they share a division with Alabama. Someone will have to lose and realistically, as often as not Alabama will lose. Now, if this was the BCS championship game? Sure, play Texas, step on the field and you can expect to leave with a win now and then. In the regular season? In the same division? Come on! Alabama already has to play 4 top 20 (historically) teams every single year (Auburn, LSU, Arkansas and Tennessee), who in their right mind says sure, Alabama should have to play a top 5 team to? Seriously!?

Having said all that, there is another way. There are programs that earn money, more money than several SEC teams and would contribute to new TV markets. Just like Georgia Tech's revenue went down when they left the SEC, if some of those ACC teams joined the SEC their revenue would go up and in turn the portion they shared would as well. In other words, the SEC can improve their financial situation without making any of their elite teams commit hari kari for the sake of money.

Finally, I don't think Texas would make more money in the SEC. They make something like 120 million a year, more than any other program, this is more than Miss. State, Ole Miss and Vanderbilt combined. They have no need to share revenue...

If the SEC really only cared about money they would find a way to kick out Vandy, Ole Miss and Miss State. They would replace them with Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Duke and if they didn't get Notre Dame, Virginia. I don't care about who joined the SEC first or regional considerations, schedule difficulty or any of that because this is all about the $, right?

 

[RIVATIDE86]

If you move Alabama and Auburn to the East you can basically get rid of fixed opponent from the other side of the conference. Alabama/Tennessee and Au/Ga are the only true rivalries that need to be preserved. LSU/Fla is a good game, but that is about it as far as the other "forced" rivalries.

East: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, USCe, UK, Vandy
West: Texas, Tex A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss St, ?, ?

You could always move Kentucky to the west, and then find and then find 1 more team for each side. Or, add Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to the west. This lineup would lead to weekends in the fall full of wonderful football. Plus, we don't get stuck watching the annual USCe/Miss St horrible game at the beginning of the season. Some are worried about the competition, but a champion from this conference would probably be a shoe-in to a national championship game.

 

[rgw]

Well, it's looking like we either going to go to 16 or get left behind in the financial aspect of the sport. No matter how indirect fans see it, the financial statements are what allow the SEC schools to consistently recruit amongst the best in the nation. We make tons of money and reinvest it into our stadiums, practice facilities, academic support, and dorms. So the only logical recourse is for our conference to get the best group of four teams financially possible. We don't want to see ten years gone and the Big Ten has usurped the SEC's dominance via impressive revenue gains and increased television exposure. It won't happen suddenly, but it is a very likely scenario if we don't aggressively respond ourselves.

Also, I don't see a conference kicking out current members...I don't know if that has ever happened in any conference. Second, I think the addition of the Texas market will enhance recruiting both ways but it ultimately will help teams like Alabama and Tennessee more as they get constant exposure in a fertile recruiting ground; Texas doesn't recruit much nationally anyway...I don't see them poaching Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama. Third, as far as regional identity goes I think most Southerners would identify with the general Texas cultural and Texas is a cultural mesh with the SEC's general cultural. Politically and socially, Texas is basically a former CSA state that didn't fight the war.

 

[BamaSully]

This is indeed a very interesting topic. Basically I think the Big Ten is looking to leapfrog the SEC as the premier conference and they are willing to make big changes to do so. On the other side of the coin, the SEC is determined not to let that happen.

So to those of you sayin "if it aint' broke don't fix it", I tend to agree that "it ain't broke" right now, however I don't want to allow a situation to unfold that would put ANYONE (Big Ten or otherwise) in a position to be able to claim football superiority over the SEC.

That said, I think the SEC must watch VERY closely as the dominos start to fall and have contingency plans in place for all possible scenarios.

For the record, if the SEC does eventually "make a move", I think it is much, much more likely the SEC would look to expand the recruiting footprint and the TV viewership (i.e. Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, OSU), rather than find regional teams who are a "good fit" (GT, Clemson, Louisville, etc).

-Sully

 

[rgw]

Well, I mean think of Georgia Tech. Does GT really solidify the Atlanta television market for the SEC more than we already have it? I don't think so. Atlanta is "the city of the South" and many SEC graduates end up being Atlanta transplants. Why else do you think the SECCG is in Atlanta every year? GT isn't that big of a deal in that town, honestly. Clemson and Louisville don't exactly help us land a valuable recruiting/TV footprint anymore than we already have with Kentucky and USC. South Carolina and Kentucky simply aren't big-time markets and we have the most important team between those two markets in Kentucky (a b-ball powerhouse, dominant in-state program).

Texas, Oklahoma, TAMU, and Ok. State do offer us a large market while not becoming too stretched geographically. I fail to see how any of those four teams are any more of a travel burden for the schools and fans than a trip to Fayetteville. Honestly, Florida State and Louisville are the only regional schools that add something to the conference. Louisville helps the basketball component greatly and Florida State is a huge state school in Florida.

 

[thunderz7]

If it comes down to TV market you can forget anything but the 4 big 12 schools,
Texas, aTm, OK, and OkieSt.
In all this super-conference talk, Texas hold all the aces,
they can pick where ever they want.
The other 3 will go with them.

If Texas chooses something besides the SEC, thus closing the Texas , Dallas, Houston market,
then it becomes about GT, FSU, Clemson and Louiville.

With this 16 team 2x8 division,
the best thig is to play everyone in your division,
no one in the other division,
last week of season
1vs1
2v2
etcvs etd
8vs8
ending all posibilitied of rematches for the championship game
1vs1 being the championship game and besd done a week after the others.

 

[BamaSully]

What is very interesting is the prospect of four 16-team superconferences that eventually separate from the NCAA so they can let the four conference champs play a Final Four for the title!

Big Ten - After adding the 5 teams that are rumored
ACC - After raiding what is left of the Big East
SEC - After adding TX, TAMU, OK, OSU
PAC-10 - After adding Colorado, Boise St., Texas Tech, TCU, Utah, BYU (using my imagination here)

-Sully

 

[KrAzY3]

Texas, Oklahoma, TAMU, and Ok. State do offer us a large market while not becoming too stretched geographically

Can someone explain to me how going into Oklahoma is paired with Texas when discussing large markets and buckets of $s and the like? Oklahoma isn't a large market! I'm not just directing this at you but I keep seeing Texas and OU over and over and there is no common logic that says both are great additions for the SEC other than making football insanely difficult.

I'd like a explanation as to why expansion into Oklahoma makes more sense financially or geographically than expansion into North Carolina.

I honestly think some people are just suicidal in their wish for absolutely murderous schedule difficulty. They preach up Texas Texas $$$ then throw Oklahoma in there like a state with 3 million is a giant market. Nope, can't have it both ways, it's big market big $s or it isn't... might as well move into North Carolina and Virginia instead of Oklahoma if it's all about the market size and expansion. Why bother with two schools in a state with a small population when you have North Carolina (9 million) and Virginia (almost 8 million). Of course we can't forget that expanding more into Florida (18 million) would increase the SEC's footprint as well.

Here's the trick about super conferences, potential playoffs or breakaway from the NCAA. The talent needs to be distributed at least amongst 4 conferences. The Big 10 has their share, the SEC has their share (7 top 20 teams), if they pick up Texas and OU they have almost half of the top 20 teams and two more top 10 teams. We'd like to dream they would crown the SEC champion the BCS champion automatically but that isn't happening. The Pac-10 or Big 10 would love for the SEC to start producing 3 loss champs because that means they get to play for championships while the SEC plays in the Sugar Bowl. They could do more than take Florida and Alabama out of contention, they could take Florida, Texas, OU AND Alabama out of contention. The SEC will pay for that down the road if they choose that path. Elite teams will be relegated to mediocrity, there's no other possible outcome. The other conferences would love it though, they'd have that much of a easier path to a national champion in any format. The SEC, for their own sake would do better looking east and leave the western teams to the western conferences...

 

[BamaFossil]

Agree re the puzzlement over the hots for OK. We don't need more murderous football teams on our schedule. Got enough already.

 

[deliveryman35]

If the SEC really wants to expand it's geographic footprint, then a westward expansion is still the best idea so far that I've heard. OU, Texas, Okie St, and TAM are all big time programs in all three of the major collegiate sports, and the DFW and OKC TV markets would be sewn up.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

Can someone explain to me how going into Oklahoma is paired with Texas when discussing large markets and buckets of $s and the like? Oklahoma isn't a large market! I'm not just directing this at you but I keep seeing Texas and OU over and over and there is no common logic that says both are great additions for the SEC other than making football insanely difficult.

I'd like a explanation as to why expansion into Oklahoma makes more sense financially or geographically than expansion into North Carolina.

I honestly think some people are just suicidal in their wish for absolutely murderous schedule difficulty. They preach up Texas Texas $$$ then throw Oklahoma in there like a state with 3 million is a giant market. Nope, can't have it both ways, it's big market big $s or it isn't... might as well move into North Carolina and Virginia instead of Oklahoma if it's all about the market size and expansion. Why bother with two schools in a state with a small population when you have North Carolina (9 million) and Virginia (almost 8 million). Of course we can't forget that expanding more into Florida (18 million) would increase the SEC's footprint as well.

Here's the trick about super conferences, potential playoffs or breakaway from the NCAA. The talent needs to be distributed at least amongst 4 conferences. The Big 10 has their share, the SEC has their share (7 top 20 teams), if they pick up Texas and OU they have almost half of the top 20 teams and two more top 10 teams. We'd like to dream they would crown the SEC champion the BCS champion automatically but that isn't happening. The Pac-10 or Big 10 would love for the SEC to start producing 3 loss champs because that means they get to play for championships while the SEC plays in the Sugar Bowl. They could do more than take Florida and Alabama out of contention, they could take Florida, Texas, OU AND Alabama out of contention. The SEC will pay for that down the road if they choose that path. Elite teams will be relegated to mediocrity, there's no other possible outcome. The other conferences would love it though, they'd have that much of a easier path to a national champion in any format. The SEC, for their own sake would do better looking east and leave the western teams to the western conferences...

No disrespect to the citizens of the great state of North Carolina, but they would rather be watching Nascar or a college basketball game than a conference football game. They're not nearly as fervent as the Texans or Oklahomans.

As you've said in some other posts, you get more viewership and buzz if 50% of 10,000,000 people are diehard football fans than you do if 10% of 30,000,000 people are "diehards." Oklahoma falls in the first category.