Who would you guys like to see the SEC add to fill out a 16 team conference?

[CapstoneGrad06]

Which won't be renewed , once the dust settles and they enter a conference . There's just not much to be gained from trying to shape a network contract around a bunch of independent schools which won't be playing for anything at the end of the year . No network would find that overly appealing .

I'm just not sold on these "super-conferences" coming to fruition. That's why I feel that we could be looking at a number independents when the dust settles. I just think some people are de-valuing the role that geography and culture would play longterm. I realize that money talks, but I just can't see east coast teams lasting longterm in the Big XII.

 

[rgw]

If the Big-XII takes 6 east coast teams, they become immensely less Southwest-centric. They could almost split the division by "old members" and "new members" while keeping a good regional proximity within the divisions. The interdivisional matchups would be only a handful of games where east coast teams would have to make the longer travel to Kansas, Iowa, Texas, and Oklahoma.

One of the benefits of a 16-team conference is that regionally dispersed conferences can practically exist because you can pair the most proximate teams within a division. The Big-XII West could be: Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State. The Big-XII East could be: Iowa State, West Virginia, Clemson, Miami, Florida State, Louisville, Cincinnati, and ???.

 

[Rama Jama]

I believe that college football for better or worse will be ruled by the number of eyes watching a TV set. TV ratings therefore will determine when and if the SEC decides to expand. It would not surprise me to see 4 super conferences of 18 or 20 when all is said and done. I do not understand the complete disregard for geography either. We all know football can afford to travel, but what about tennis, softball, track, and soccer. Travel costs are not the only factor, what about rivalry games that will cease to mean anything.

All that being said:

I think NC and Duke are attached at the hip as are Texas and OU. I think either of these 2 sets or both would make a great addition to the conference. I don't see Duke or NC coming to SEC for a multitude of reasons. Not to ignore the improving academic atmosphere of the the SEC, but both Duke and NC are on a different level. Basketball rules the ACC and that is just fine with both of Duke and NC. OU and Texas are a perfect fit to me. Imagine the TV sets watching OU and Alabama every year.

 

[BamaFossil]

If that is the case, why does the "the SEC wants/needs the DC market" continue? DC is like a military town; every few years one group moves out and another moves in. There's no consistency in the viewership.

I likewise have heard "SEC wants/needs the DC market" and dunno who smokes it up. DC isn't a college football market... It's a pro market. As you note, it's a transient market and college football fans from all over the country move into and out of DC. Heck, there's a fair-sized Alabama fanbase there.

 

[Bazza]

Boise State and T.C.U.....now THAT would be interesting!

 

[Crimson1967]

I wonder how often Tulane curses the people who decided to take them out of the SEC many years ago. Granted, they'd be Mississippi State level in a good year but at least they'd be better off financially. Home games every other year with Alabama, LSU and the Barn would be guaranteed sell outs. As would the Mississippi schools most likely. That would have made the hit from Katrina more bearable than a schedule of games where the highlight is Southern Miss and road games at mostly empty stadiums.

Georgia Tech is in a good spot in a BCS league, but they may be left out in the cold if the ACC is swallowed by the Big XII.

Its hard to say what would have transpired with Arkansas and the other newcomers if we had always been at 12.

 

[KrAzY3]

OU and Texas are a perfect fit to me. Imagine the TV sets watching OU and Alabama every year.

Another poster alluded to SoS, and I think they're right on. Even Texas A&M and Missouri make Alabama's schedule more difficult. Is it that they can't beat both teams? Of course they can, but it's two more games that will take a toll physically, it's two more games that Alabama has to take seriously. I believe SoS goes up exponentially. If you replace either of those with Vandy, your schedule looks a lot different. Each tough game in a row is another week you don't get a chance to recover, another week of mounting injuries.

I've advocated for Notre Dame, and I've stated I could stomach Virginia Tech and FSU. The main reason for this is I think Notre Dame is overrated, and VT and FSU while tough, would be in the East which would have less impact on Alabama and re balance the divisions a bit. I'd still prefer North Carolina and Virginia and part of that equation is they'd bring in revenue, but they'd also be an easy win for SEC powers, which is hard to come by.

Think about it like this, look at Alabama's schedule next year. Now, try and figure out where you'd fit in an OU or a Texas. I have other reasons for not wanting both (OU is in a small state, Texas kills conferences), but while I can see the prestige argument, these are two highly competitive football powers. The SEC West is already the best conference in the country, adding those two would be insane. You'd limp out of a schedule like that, then imagine playing the SEC championship game and then two games in a plus one? You'd be so beat up by the time you reached that last game that just showing up would be an accomplishment.

 

[LCN]

I'm just not sold on these "super-conferences" coming to fruition. That's why I feel that we could be looking at a number independents when the dust settles. I just think some people are de-valuing the role that geography and culture would play longterm. I realize that money talks, but I just can't see east coast teams lasting longterm in the Big XII.

I wish it wouldn't happen either yet I continue to hear a quote from Bobby Knight in my ear containing the word "inevitable"

 

[B1GTide]

I would love to see each of the big conferences pull in one of the service academies.

 

[lincoln_osiris]

I don't particularly want it to happen, but at the same time there could be some positives from the super conferences if they are done the right way. I would go with Notre Dame and North Carolina if I had to choose. It might be best to pick the 64 teams that are gonna be in and blow up the current conferences and reconfigure. I guess you could make 8 super conferences and still include everyone. 128 teams.

 

[GrayTide]

Put me down as one who would prefer the old standard of 10 team conferences and about 10 bowl games with the 4 biggies on New Year's Day, but that ship has sailed. I also think the philosophy of geographical and cultural fits to determine affiliation for conference membership has left the station. What we now have are conferences trying to fill up to some magical number (it appears 16) with a patchwork of teams that makes absolutely no sense. The main driver for all of this is revenue. IMO this will eventually (maybe not in my lifetime) lead to the demise of college football or at best turn college football into nothing more than a minor league system for the NFL complete with AAA, AA, A, B, C and D farm teams.

I have no idea how all of this will eventually play out and, and quite frankly am beginning to lose some interest in the game. I think that college football suffers from over exposure, how much more can the fan take and at some point ratings are sure to take a hit. In the early days of college football on TV you can argue that there was a lack of exposure, and I would agree, but in some way I think that might have led to the anticipation and mystique of the game.

Unfortunately, the future of college football is in the hands of people from ESPN, CBS, the BCS, Delaney, Scott and others who IMO do not care to preserve college football, it is now all about protecting your turf, concocting unheard of alliances in order to not get left behind. I wish the Ivy League had its on football network because that is the kind of football I could get enjoyment from. (OFF RANT)

 

[im4uainva]

VT and UVA. But then again, I'm biased as in where I am located. Ideally I would like VT and UNC. I think a lot of my fellow Bama fans short-change UNC. I believe year after year on a regular basis that UNC could very easily wind up in the top 75 to 90 percentile as far as success within the SEC. Same said for VT. But that is just my opinion. It would be sweet to travel 8 miles down the road to Scott Stadium to watch my beloved Tide do battle with the Cavaliers. Roll Tide!

 

[capnfrog]

Clemson, FSU and VT, pick any two. Now let the East play the East and the West play the West and the highest ranked team in the East plays the highest ranked team in the West for the SEC Championship.

 

[freefall]

If that is the case, why does the "the SEC wants/needs the DC market" continue? DC is like a military town; every few years one group moves out and another moves in. There's no consistency in the viewership.

I don't know whether or not the SEC wants the DC market, but if it does, it's because the DC metro area represents the 8th largest TV market in the country. Per 2011 data, there are 2.36M TV households, making it slightly bigger than Atlanta and a little smaller than Dallas. Even though it's not a hardcore college football market, that's a huge opportunity for advertisers.

 

[JIB]

Haven't read any replies but here's my input:

I'd like to see the SEC add Clemson and Virginia Tech. I would have preferred the SEC to add WVU over Mizzou, but oh well. I suppose we'd have to raid someone else besides a Big 12 team so the ACC looks to be the place to take someone from.

Practically speaking Clemson doesn't have much of a chance and neither would FSU if Florida had their way. Va Tech seems like the logical choice.

Any chance we can stop Mizzou from coming in? I just really hated that pick.

 

[KrAzY3]

Any chance we can stop Mizzou from coming in? I just really hated that pick.

Missouri is better than any easily available program out there. One can argue if Virginia, or North Carolina are better additions but on what basis do you hate that pick?

A: They were the second largest Big 12 state.
B: They're the only FBS program in that state.
C: Along with a good size population, they have two major markets.
D: Their football program has good support (top 30 in attendance).
F: Perhaps most importantly, they don't make the SEC's SoS insane.

I really don't get the, let's add nothing but football powers thing. Let's review. The average SEC team will lose 4 conference games per year. Making the illogical assumption that they win every other game, they'd go 9-4. However, it's much more likely that we're talking about a lot of 7-8 win teams. If you bring in a football power, all you're doing is dooming a current SEC team to mediocrity.

 

[rgw]

Missouri has some potential because I think the SEC alignment gives them a bigger recruiting presence in Memphis and Mississippi. They're like Arkansas but in a more populous state. They don't have an elite talent pool in-state, so they likely won't get to LSU levels but its not like the state of Misssissippi has ever been fenced off from surrounding SEC schools and Tennessee out-right can't recruit West Tennessee.

 

[Crimson1967]

I hate that market share seems to be a higher consideration than anything else.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

We probably can. Honestly, there are no easy additions I can think of that would make financial sense. Either the SEC has to stay at 14, they make a dumb move, or something has to give. I'm not big on redundancy within a state anyway, how much do we think Miss St. actually earns on their own? Or, Vanderbilt?

The last 3 national championships have gone to a state with redundancy. Yes, I know all about $cam but I say that to point out redundancy itself isn't bad if the fan base support is there. We already have redundancy in 3 states with 2 of them being the worst possible states to have it in. Mississippi and Tennessee... really? Florida or Texas are plenty big to support redundancy. Just stay away from GA Tech, Louisville, Memphis, etc... we don't want another team from those states. I remember years ago there was some support for adding Southern Miss. What a horrible move that would have been, a 3rd crappy team from Mississippi.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

I don't know whether or not the SEC wants the DC market, but if it does, it's because the DC metro area represents the 8th largest TV market in the country. Per 2011 data, there are 2.36M TV households, making it slightly bigger than Atlanta and a little smaller than Dallas. Even though it's not a hardcore college football market, that's a huge opportunity for advertisers.

I hope we don't waste too much time and energy going after the DC market. We will never have the success there the tv numbers show possible. The SEC would be looked down on over the nose of the DC residents. Not to be political but we southerners would be laughed at because many of us own guns, believe in God and talk funny. Do you really believe tv's in the DC and Arlington area will tune in to watch southern pride on display during barbecues on the lawns of the wealthy and Washington power brokers?