Who would you guys like to see the SEC add to fill out a 16 team conference?
- Thread starter rbvols
- Start date
Indeed. They will be beating people in the conference this year. This is not going to be like Arkansas and South Carolina's first seasons in the league. Both of those programs were down when they joined in '92 (was South Carolina ever "up"?) and they struggled. This won't be the case with A&M and Missouri.
I guess I'm really talking about their success in the SEC they can expect than where they were upon entry.
I think Mizzou is going to improve a lot simply because the SEC gives them an in to Mississippi and West Tennessee. They're closer to Memphis than Tennessee and a better program than either Mississippi school.
I think Mizzou is going to improve a lot simply because the SEC gives them an in to Mississippi and West Tennessee. They're closer to Memphis than Tennessee and a better program than either Mississippi school.
I think you guys are spot on. I think A&M will fit somewhere in the middle for the first couple of years. BUT, we are already seeing the benefits in recruiting as the only SEC team in Texas. Every top recruit in Texas knows the SEC is the place to play if you want to play in the NFL someday. We just have to find our Saban, then we will contend with the best of the SEC. Hopefully, Sumlin is our guy. If not, he won't be there very long.
This thread seems to have gone on a tangent and is now talking about the most recent additions. OK...
Fact is, the SEC doesn't need any more gorillas in the conference. Granted, aTm and/or Mizzou may become gorillas and that's fine. But the SEC was going after flagship state institutions that can bring viewers to the TVs, put fannies in the seats, and are in the geographical vacinity of the SEC. The SEC hit a homerun with aTm and Mizzou. And I expect things to work out well for the two institutions.
No more expansion to the west. IMO any thoughts of Okie to the SEC are pipe dreams. Only remaining expansion will be to the east. FSU & Clemson will not be on anyone's SEC expansion plans. The states of NC and VA are the next targets. That is, IF it is deemed that further expansion will work to the benefit of the conference.
Fact is, the SEC doesn't need any more gorillas in the conference. Granted, aTm and/or Mizzou may become gorillas and that's fine. But the SEC was going after flagship state institutions that can bring viewers to the TVs, put fannies in the seats, and are in the geographical vacinity of the SEC. The SEC hit a homerun with aTm and Mizzou. And I expect things to work out well for the two institutions.
No more expansion to the west. IMO any thoughts of Okie to the SEC are pipe dreams. Only remaining expansion will be to the east. FSU & Clemson will not be on anyone's SEC expansion plans. The states of NC and VA are the next targets. That is, IF it is deemed that further expansion will work to the benefit of the conference.
You have to really consider what going to 16 teams means. People have mentioned the "Pod" concept of scheduling, but I'm not sure that's how it would work out. And two 8 team divisions means you're going to lose annual cross division rivalries. You can't play an 8 game conference schedule when 7 of those are your division games. If you have a permanent cross division rival, then you have the same conference schedule every year. So then you go to 9 conference games and you have just one rotating opponent. So it takes 14 years to play the entire conference.
And the whole pod thing... how do you resolve tie breakers? You've got the potential of having two teams in the division with the same record without having played one another.
I think 12 is obviously the highest you can go and have it work the best. We went to 14, and 14 is workable but not optimal. 16 seems too unwieldy. I guess, if the ACC truly does crumble, we'll go that route.
And the whole pod thing... how do you resolve tie breakers? You've got the potential of having two teams in the division with the same record without having played one another.
I think 12 is obviously the highest you can go and have it work the best. We went to 14, and 14 is workable but not optimal. 16 seems too unwieldy. I guess, if the ACC truly does crumble, we'll go that route.
There's no need to lose rivalry games, but you do have to drop a rotating game.
This makes the conference championship game even bigger, as it's less likely to be a rematch. Likewise, you can make a third seed vs. third seed East/West bowl game, which once again is unlikely to be a rematch. The main idea is that if you can go extended periods of time without playing a team in the other division, you can go longer...
This makes the conference championship game even bigger, as it's less likely to be a rematch. Likewise, you can make a third seed vs. third seed East/West bowl game, which once again is unlikely to be a rematch. The main idea is that if you can go extended periods of time without playing a team in the other division, you can go longer...
There are things about the arrangement I do like. And to be quite honest, as I have given it more and more thought, I wouldn't be so upset about losing Tennessee. I'd rather trade Auburn for Tennessee, but that's never going to happen. But at the end of the day, I'll watch because I'm an Alabama fan. I'd watch if they played North Texas.
One issue with the Big-XII was that NU-OU was so rarely played. That was the premier Big-8 rivalry but Texas came in and effectively ended it to ensure the Red River Rivalry would happen every season. Rivalries are one of the key drivers of television viewership in college football. Anything that diminishes or eliminates rivalries is not going to work to increase revenue.
What has to happen is the elimination out of conference games with 16-team power conferences. When conferences are rolling 16-deep, I see little use for out of conference games. The schedule is seven intra-divisional opponents, one permanent inter-divisional opponent, and four rotating inter-divisional opponents. The revenue is enhanced even more by packaging more relevant games. Also, understand that the 4 power conference champions playoff doesn't put a premium on going undefeated but simply winning the conference.
Some might not like this because the schedule is harder but why does it matter when all you have to do is win the conference to get into the playoff? 10-3 or 13-0...it doesn't matter, winning the division then championship game does. No more beauty contest that encourages schedule stuffing.
Delany's plan actually works if there are four power conferences that are 16-deep with all the quality teams. Each has an auto-bid...there is little question that these are the four that best navigated their way to the mountain top considering each is playing 12 conference games to even get their championship game bid.
What has to happen is the elimination out of conference games with 16-team power conferences. When conferences are rolling 16-deep, I see little use for out of conference games. The schedule is seven intra-divisional opponents, one permanent inter-divisional opponent, and four rotating inter-divisional opponents. The revenue is enhanced even more by packaging more relevant games. Also, understand that the 4 power conference champions playoff doesn't put a premium on going undefeated but simply winning the conference.
Some might not like this because the schedule is harder but why does it matter when all you have to do is win the conference to get into the playoff? 10-3 or 13-0...it doesn't matter, winning the division then championship game does. No more beauty contest that encourages schedule stuffing.
Delany's plan actually works if there are four power conferences that are 16-deep with all the quality teams. Each has an auto-bid...there is little question that these are the four that best navigated their way to the mountain top considering each is playing 12 conference games to even get their championship game bid.
Last edited:
Good points. But this truly does turn the game into an NFL-lite. Maybe, in many ways, it's already been that for several years.
I think at that point, though, you're going to have these power conferences completely separate from the rest of the current lineup of "FBS" schools. Those schools, such as Sun Belt, MAC, and WAC teams get a ton of their money from playing games at the big time schools' stadiums. If these big time schools are only playing in-conference games, there leaves no room on the schedule for the annual patsies. Schools like San Jose State and Florida International will wither on the vine.
That's exactly what I think will happen. If you have no need for the Sisters of the Poor schools anymore for schedule padding games, it makes no sense of even participating in the same subdivision. It gives further strength to sandboxing the playoff revenue and avoids legitimate anti-trust litigation. The theoretical four power-conference model actually hinges on petitioning the NCAA for a new subdivision. Otherwise, they can't legally make a playoff where each power conference gets an autobid at 4 teams. I think the NCAA will allow this without much of a fight too. It will effectively give them control over FBS again and allow them to make a playoff system that will derive more interest than the current FCS playoff. They know they'll never touch the big money anyway but they could carve out their own niche to bring in more revenue off football than they do right now.
What would happen in reality is the SEC teams would beat themselves up, the best team would have 2 or 3 losses and they wouldn't even qualify for a plus one. They might watch a Big East champion Boise St. play in a plus one, or a Notre Dame or something, but most likely not the two or three loss SEC champion.
Out of conference games serve a lot of purposes. You don't drop the rivalry games, you don't have that problem! Alabama isn't rivals with anyone in the east save UT. In some cases there is no real rival on the other side. You don't have to lose any rivalries, you don't have to turn your schedule into insanity. Alabama chooses their OOC games, why on earth would we want Alabama to lose all choice in regards to their schedule? Keep it at 8 games! Don't break something that's working fine. As I said, if you lose anything, lose a rotating game that is as likely to be disruptive as anything else.
Mind you, I have very specific tastes in terms of what I'd find acceptable as an additional SEC teams, but if it happens, you don't need to radically change anything. I'm laughing at the Big 10/Pac-12 considering making all their games a lovefest between conferences. Good luck with that, the SEC doesn't need to make their schedule more brutal. Or are we cutting the crap and going semi-pro? Because these kids aren't going to get any more in return for people coming up with this stuff for them.
Out of conference games serve a lot of purposes. You don't drop the rivalry games, you don't have that problem! Alabama isn't rivals with anyone in the east save UT. In some cases there is no real rival on the other side. You don't have to lose any rivalries, you don't have to turn your schedule into insanity. Alabama chooses their OOC games, why on earth would we want Alabama to lose all choice in regards to their schedule? Keep it at 8 games! Don't break something that's working fine. As I said, if you lose anything, lose a rotating game that is as likely to be disruptive as anything else.
Mind you, I have very specific tastes in terms of what I'd find acceptable as an additional SEC teams, but if it happens, you don't need to radically change anything. I'm laughing at the Big 10/Pac-12 considering making all their games a lovefest between conferences. Good luck with that, the SEC doesn't need to make their schedule more brutal. Or are we cutting the crap and going semi-pro? Because these kids aren't going to get any more in return for people coming up with this stuff for them.
My point is that there will be no BS conferences that don't experience the same attrition of the season as a 16-team SEC. The Big Ten, SEC, Big-XII, and Pac-12 will be the only conferences in the new top-level subdivision. Each will play a 12-game intra-conference schedule, select two divisional champions for their conference championship game, and send their conference champion to the 4-team playoff.
There won't be some freeloader from the ACC or Big East in the the playoffs over an SEC team that played a tougher schedule because they won't even be invited to the same subdivisional party!
There won't be some freeloader from the ACC or Big East in the the playoffs over an SEC team that played a tougher schedule because they won't even be invited to the same subdivisional party!
Well, for starters the Pac-12 for instance can't come close to the same attrition because they're not playing the same teams! I don't know what 16 teams would end up in each of these imagined 16 team conferences, but unless there is no Big 12, the Pac-12 is going to be nothing near the SEC, this I know.
Even if we do see this breakaway, there's a lot of assumptions being made. Having said that, if we see a 16 team SEC, it will likely be the toughest conference, college football will still likely be amateur, and there will probably not be only 4 conferences playing on that level.
What I do know, is as long as Alabama plays in the FBS, it's a good thing if they only have 8 conference games.
Even if we do see this breakaway, there's a lot of assumptions being made. Having said that, if we see a 16 team SEC, it will likely be the toughest conference, college football will still likely be amateur, and there will probably not be only 4 conferences playing on that level.
What I do know, is as long as Alabama plays in the FBS, it's a good thing if they only have 8 conference games.
The PAC 12 could never expand to 16 and that's what is going to throw a wrench into the 4, 16 team super conference break away.
The PAC 12's only options for expansion at this point are Oklahoma, OK State, Texas and Texas Tech. And that is really only to get Texas. They have no use for the other three programs and made as much clear last summer. So, with the Big 12 somehow surviving, the Pac 12 stays at 12.
And for all of the talk of the SEC "beating itself up", and yes it is the toughest conference, we've seen the SEC win 7 of the past 9 NCs, and 8 of the 14 BCS titles. In reality, the SEC has about 2 or maybe 3 great teams in any given year. Then there are usually 4 pretty good teams, and the rest pretty much stink. Now, those that stink still play harder and hit harder than the bottom feeders of the other leagues and that's what separates the SEC from the rest. But the ability for a team to go undefeated or have one loss in the SEC is pretty high. Otherwise, would we have seen this run that the SEC has been on?
There is certainly a tipping point that can occur. But that's if we add Texas or Oklahoma. That's not happening.
The PAC 12's only options for expansion at this point are Oklahoma, OK State, Texas and Texas Tech. And that is really only to get Texas. They have no use for the other three programs and made as much clear last summer. So, with the Big 12 somehow surviving, the Pac 12 stays at 12.
And for all of the talk of the SEC "beating itself up", and yes it is the toughest conference, we've seen the SEC win 7 of the past 9 NCs, and 8 of the 14 BCS titles. In reality, the SEC has about 2 or maybe 3 great teams in any given year. Then there are usually 4 pretty good teams, and the rest pretty much stink. Now, those that stink still play harder and hit harder than the bottom feeders of the other leagues and that's what separates the SEC from the rest. But the ability for a team to go undefeated or have one loss in the SEC is pretty high. Otherwise, would we have seen this run that the SEC has been on?
There is certainly a tipping point that can occur. But that's if we add Texas or Oklahoma. That's not happening.
I started toying with the idea of four 16-team conferences in a new 64-team upper division. It is very interesting to play with the idea but I ran into some difficulty with exactly who the teams would be. If the conferences drove the process from where we are now to that end-state, then it would be a free-for-all with each conference competing to poach the most attractive schools, likely with very little regard for geography or tradition. The result would be pretty chaotic (like West Viginia in the Big12 only there would be many more such examples).
And we would not be left with the "64 best football schools". You would still have ALL of the existing members of those four conferences (Vandy, Kentucky, Indiana, Northwestern, Iowa State, Baylor, Washington State, Utah, etc).
As I stared at a list of all the schools currently in the bowl subdivision I realized there are more than 64 universities with some good football tradition and lucrative present-day program. If someone really picked the 64 best ones (I guess based on some combination of revenue, average attendance, and a tradition of football success) the list would not include some of the teams currently in those 4 big conferences. Who is gonna run off those long-standing members?
So whether someone simply "decided" up front which 64 teams to include or whether the conferences simply poached each other until the dust settled with 4 superconferences, we would either have some really strong football programs left out or some really long-standing weaker conference members would have to be forced out.
In the chaotic poaching world, Maybe Florida St and Clemson would catch on with the Big12. Maybe the SEC would add North Carolina and Virginia (or VTech and NCState). Maybe the B1G would add Notre Dame and some combination of Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Cincinnati, etc). Maybe the PAC12 would add BYU and possibly Boise State. But anyone else would simply be left to play in a lower division with no chance at a title. Imagine in that example if the SEC got the states schools of VA and NC. Then Virginia Tech and NC State would simply not be included. They would be in the lower division with all the teams from the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Soon all the fan interest and financial support would wane and those schools would be just like the other lower division schools. You would be dooming all those who dont make the cut.
Weird
And we would not be left with the "64 best football schools". You would still have ALL of the existing members of those four conferences (Vandy, Kentucky, Indiana, Northwestern, Iowa State, Baylor, Washington State, Utah, etc).
As I stared at a list of all the schools currently in the bowl subdivision I realized there are more than 64 universities with some good football tradition and lucrative present-day program. If someone really picked the 64 best ones (I guess based on some combination of revenue, average attendance, and a tradition of football success) the list would not include some of the teams currently in those 4 big conferences. Who is gonna run off those long-standing members?
So whether someone simply "decided" up front which 64 teams to include or whether the conferences simply poached each other until the dust settled with 4 superconferences, we would either have some really strong football programs left out or some really long-standing weaker conference members would have to be forced out.
In the chaotic poaching world, Maybe Florida St and Clemson would catch on with the Big12. Maybe the SEC would add North Carolina and Virginia (or VTech and NCState). Maybe the B1G would add Notre Dame and some combination of Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Cincinnati, etc). Maybe the PAC12 would add BYU and possibly Boise State. But anyone else would simply be left to play in a lower division with no chance at a title. Imagine in that example if the SEC got the states schools of VA and NC. Then Virginia Tech and NC State would simply not be included. They would be in the lower division with all the teams from the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Soon all the fan interest and financial support would wane and those schools would be just like the other lower division schools. You would be dooming all those who dont make the cut.
Weird
Although I'm a fan of the "breakaway republic" idea, this is clearly the biggest hurdle IMO. For example, I've heard from various SEC fans (here and elsewhere) that there isn't much support for abandoning someone like Vandy, but you can't very well keep them and exclude boyzee and avoid antitrust scrutiny. Given that, I don't see how this ends at only 64 teams, because you end up leaving out some fairly prominent football programs.
Exactly. And as we've already seen, state governments WILL get involved in that case (see Texas and Virginia, for instance). That's an example of the cure being worse than the disease if you ask me, but if we all can't find a way to play nicely in the same sandbox, they are going to step in.
Had another thought. Scary right? :wink: Disclaimer: This post explains and idea that will NEVER happen. No one in a position to be able to make this happen (see: NCAA) has the desire to do so. Just thoughts...
If we had 5 major conferences (SEC, B1G, PAC12, BIG12, and ACC) and they were in a separate division, it could actually work well. I think there would be roughly 76 teams in all. In that case, you pretty much get everyone with a "good program" as described earlier and you keep the old major conference mainstays who usually are not excellent at football (see: Vandy, Kentucky, etc).
The conference champs qualify for the postseason. You have to keep a ranking system in place and it has to potentially be capable of ranking teams well into the 30s and possibly 40s (a la basketball's RPI) because the two lowest ranked conf champs play a "play-in" game first to establish the #4 seed. Seeds 1, 2, and 3 are set by the same ranking system.
The bowls are still in place for the other 70 or so teams that are not in the playoff.
I would like to see this in place IF the conferences could be sort-of restructured a little bit to restore a bit of order.
Example:
The PAC12 picks up Boise and BYU to make 14 teams, and potentially two of these schools to make 16 (Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho, Colorado State).
The BIG12 gets Nebraska back and then they can cherry pick from CUSA, Sun Belt, WAC, Mountain West. I think it'd be easy to get 6 teams that "fit". Then they would be at 16. I figure they'd pick between Houston, Memphis, Rice, SMU, Air Force, New Mexico, Tulsa, and UTEP who would all be chompin' at the bit to get in.
The B1G loses Nebraska and picks up Notre Dame, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn to go to 16 teams.
The ACC gets Louisville and Cincinnati to go to 14.
The SEC stays put.
It'd be cool I think, but it won't happen.
-Sully
If we had 5 major conferences (SEC, B1G, PAC12, BIG12, and ACC) and they were in a separate division, it could actually work well. I think there would be roughly 76 teams in all. In that case, you pretty much get everyone with a "good program" as described earlier and you keep the old major conference mainstays who usually are not excellent at football (see: Vandy, Kentucky, etc).
The conference champs qualify for the postseason. You have to keep a ranking system in place and it has to potentially be capable of ranking teams well into the 30s and possibly 40s (a la basketball's RPI) because the two lowest ranked conf champs play a "play-in" game first to establish the #4 seed. Seeds 1, 2, and 3 are set by the same ranking system.
The bowls are still in place for the other 70 or so teams that are not in the playoff.
I would like to see this in place IF the conferences could be sort-of restructured a little bit to restore a bit of order.
Example:
The PAC12 picks up Boise and BYU to make 14 teams, and potentially two of these schools to make 16 (Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho, Colorado State).
The BIG12 gets Nebraska back and then they can cherry pick from CUSA, Sun Belt, WAC, Mountain West. I think it'd be easy to get 6 teams that "fit". Then they would be at 16. I figure they'd pick between Houston, Memphis, Rice, SMU, Air Force, New Mexico, Tulsa, and UTEP who would all be chompin' at the bit to get in.
The B1G loses Nebraska and picks up Notre Dame, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn to go to 16 teams.
The ACC gets Louisville and Cincinnati to go to 14.
The SEC stays put.
It'd be cool I think, but it won't happen.
-Sully
Last edited:
I find it unlikely that very liberal membership of the current Pac-12 is interesting in BYU. It would be easier to get into the Big-XII for them. The Big-XII has a Methodist and Baptist private school already.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Miami's Lewis encourages Lacy, resilient Rebels- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: CFP semifinal takeaways: Carson Beck, Miami deliver heart-stopping win
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Late Beck TD carries Miami into CFP title game
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: QB Williams runs reverse, stays at Washington
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 1
-
ESPN: Reports: QB Lagway picks Baylor for new start
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Big 12 leading rusher Martin to return to BYU
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0