How Would Texas A&M's Annexation by the SEC Affect the Georgia Bulldogs?
by T Kyle King on Aug 11, 2011 9:45 AM EDT
in Georgia Bulldogs Football Recruiting
Email
PrintI had promised myself I wasn’t going to get sucked back into the conference realignment discussion until there was bona fide news upon which to comment, but, now that the governor of Texas appears to have let the cat out of the bag that discussions are taking place, I suppose it’s time to examine the implications of the Texas A&M Aggies joining the Southeastern Conference.
First of all, I will begin by setting forth my assumptions and opinions in the matter, with which reasonable people are free (indeed, encouraged) to disagree. These are they:
- I do not believe the SEC presently needs to expand. For all the hullabaloo about radical realignment last summer, at the end of the day, the Pac-
1012 and the BigTenTen opted for the model the SEC pioneered: twelve teams, two divisions, one conference championship game. It ain’t broke. - However, I trust Mike Slive in such matters, and, if he thinks it’s time to move, I am prepared to accept it on faith that it is time to move.
- The Big
1212 remains a dead league walking, and it is clear that the conference eventually is going to be split; all that remains is to determine where the chips will fall when the Texas Longhorns become an independent, which is inevitable. - No program not currently in the SEC is as good a cultural, financial, and geographic fit for the SEC as Texas A&M. Some schools (Clemson, Florida State, arguably Georgia Tech) make good cultural and geographic sense, but not good financial sense; other schools (North Carolina, Texas) make good financial and geographic sense, but not good cultural sense; still other schools (Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, arguably Missouri) make good cultural and financial sense, but not good geographic sense. Accordingly, Texas A&M is far and away the best candidate for SEC expansion.
Since this appears to have moved beyond the mere rumor stage, the next question is obvious. How would bringing the Aggies into the Southeastern Conference affect the Georgia Bulldogs?
Several particularly salient points were raised by Year2, who wrote:
Texas A&M joining the conference allows the Aggies to sell the SEC to recruits in Texas, but it also opens up the gate. The SEC West schools, who will end up in a division with A&M, will have few remaining barriers to going after prized Texas recruits. The cutthroat world of SEC recruiting will annex some large and fertile territory. I don't know how much East division schools will benefit directly, but they might be able to poach a few more players here and there. They might also benefit if some West schools divert some resources away from Florida and over into Texas.
Though this condition is unlikely to prove permanent, the SEC West currently is the stronger of the league’s two divisions. It also is home to 51 of the 61 native Texans presently listed on Southeastern Conference rosters; the Vanderbilt Commodores, curiously enough, are the only Eastern Division outfit with more than one Lone Star State player on the team.
This correlation does not imply causation; Ole Miss and Vandy, who field the league’s third- and fourth-most Texans, respectively, shared the SEC cellar at 1-7 in conference play in 2010. However, increased access to the fertile recruiting fields of the former Southwest Conference certainly wouldn’t hurt the westernmost teams in the league, each of which would play the Aggies annually.
Year2, though, makes a good point that the opening of the door to the Lone Star State might well distract Western Division squads from focusing their efforts on the Sunshine State, from which the Red and Black have pulled more than a few recruits in their history. Of course, a reduction of the presence of the Alabama Crimson Tide, Auburn Tigers, and LSU Tigers in the Florida Gators’ home state might well benefit the Bulldogs’ primary division rival more than any other team, so having some of those young men go west might help keep the Sunshine State Saurians from being any more dominant than they are in the Eastern Division.
Still, the enticements offered by the state of Texas are strong, even if Georgia would only play Texas A&M on a rotating basis. In the Mark Richt era, the ‘Dawgs have fielded such Texans as Garland’s Dale Dixson, Bulverde’s Rowdy Francis, Dallas’s Matthew Stafford, and Highland Park’s Wes Van Dyk, and I wouldn’t mind having a few more of those fellows in Athens. (The Classic City Canines also have fielded such Oklahomans as Tulsa’s Michael Johnson and such Missourians as Columbia’s Logan Gray and Aron White, as well as Bolivar’s Dennis Roland, so maybe the Sooners and the Tigers aren’t the worst candidates in the world to accompany the Aggies into the SEC.)
What do you think? Is inviting Texas A&M to join the SEC a good idea, and, if so, which team or teams should join the Aggies in making the move?
Go ‘Dawgs!
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Assuming the SEC doesn't stop at 13
What school do you think is the most likely to join as the 14th member to set up equal divisions? Clemson and FSU seem like the most logical options, but there could be arguments for others. VT could slot into the East, or a team from the west (Oklahoma, Mizzou for example) could be brought in with Auburn shifted to the East.
by Torgo's Executive Powder on Aug 11, 2011 9:52 AM EDT reply actions
I used to think VT was a ridiculous proposition
But when you look at a map, it’s about the same distance from Knoxville to Blacksburg as it is from Columbia to Chapel Hill. Unlike FSU, Clemson, or Tech, it gets us an entirely new media market. And unlike UNC, I bet they’d actually accept an invite. Also, by balancing the east/west invites, we don’t have to rejigger current alignments and protected rivalries, so there’s that.
From the other Big 12-2 schools, I don’t see Oklahoma going a way that Texas doesn’t go, Texas Tech is too far away and also possibly in a more depressing locale than even Sakerlina, I doubt anyone else would agree with me that Baylor makes a nice balance for Vandy, and that just leaves Oklahoma State and Missouri as schools in states that are contiguous to the SEC already. I think I’d rather have VT than any of those options.
by commodore_dude on Aug 11, 2011 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If I were to rank the options
1. Virginia Tech
2. Clemson
3. FSU
4. Oklahoma (cash money, but unlikely)
5. Georgia Tech (they won’t do it, and we don’t want them)
6. UNC (no connection to any SEC school)
7. Mizzou
by Torgo's Executive Powder on Aug 11, 2011 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
When you say there's no connection for UNC
Lest we forget, we were both (along with the rest of the pre-expansion SEC) in the Socon from 1921-1932. Along with VT, for that matter.
by commodore_dude on Aug 11, 2011 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I meant more in terms of rivalry
And yes, I concede that VT has no rivalry either, I just think they fit in with the SEC East better than UNC.
AKA, they actually like football.
by Torgo's Executive Powder on Aug 11, 2011 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
NC has been a past rival of SC
and I can’t imagine we could get them without taking at least one, and they might demand all 3, of their in state, in conference compatriots.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 11, 2011 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions
You're somewhat right there
I doubt UNC really cares if Wake tags along. However, there’s no way UNC gives up rivalries with Duke, UVA, and NC State just for the SEC. They could do like UGA, USC, UK, and UF and have one permanent out of conference rival, but that would still mean losing two of their biggest rivalries. It would be like asking us to join the Big Ten and being able to keep only one of our annual rivalries with The Big Three. There’s enough grumbling among the older crowd about losing our fourth biggest rival, historically, in Clemson.
The 984 Has Spoken!
But then again, money talks....
the old fans will always complain about one thing or another. That’s what old people do. But offer to double their revenue’s (and I’m not sure if SEC cuts double those of the ACC), and those rivalries loses importance in a hurry in the minds of the decision makers.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
If you take everything The984 said
and replace “UNC” with “Arkansas,” and “Duke, UVA, and NC State” with “Texas, Texas A & M, and SMU,” you begin to understand why I think North Carolina is a prime target for the SEC.
Red Cup Rebellion - Changing the culture of Ole Miss Athletics
Destroying your traditions since [YEAR REDACTED].
2 and 5 are way too high...
see below. As Big Dan Teague once said, “It’s all about the money, boys!”. Neither 2 nor 5 would add enough revenue to the bottom line to justify taking a cut of current moneys. No SEC member is likely to improve an addition that sees them bring home a smaller cut, so we need teams that can increase revenue substantially so that the current checks increase. Not decrease, and not even stay the same (because then why add when there’s no gain), they have to be able to increase revenue to the point where we all get more.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 11, 2011 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Clemson is being used here more as a means to round out the divisions than bring in revenue
Certainly Slive wants big money schools first, but barring that, he has to take a second school (or three more) to make adding A&M viable. Obviously he’ll look first to new markets (VT, Oklahoma, UNC, etc), but if that fails, Clemson’s geographic convenience and cultural similarities make them a better fit than some of the other teams in that list. I just don’t see OU coming.
by Torgo's Executive Powder on Aug 11, 2011 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess I just don't get that far...
if those “new markets” fail, then imo the whole things fall through. Maybe if say A&M and Clemson can combine to make for an overall increase in revenue that justify’s 2 more cuts out of the pie, then that might work. But again, “It’s all about the money, boys”, so while your arguments are valid, imo the almighty dollar trumps all arguments in this situation, and if the current 12 aren’t seeing a payraise from the move, then they ain’t moving.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 11, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
The discussion of media markets is an irrelevant one.
The SEC Network also goes by the name “ESPN,” and already has penetration into every major media market in the country.
I don’t think revenue is likely to do anything other than remain neutral if the SEC expands to 14 teams… and I don’t really see how it would even remain neutral, but I assume it’s a condition of expansion that per-school TV revenue would remain, at worst, the same.
There are no schools that “bring the SEC into a new market,” not even $Texas.
by vineyarddawg on Aug 11, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Bring them in to a new market is not what I'm saying vine...
I’d assume their deal with ESPn is based on the number of eyes likely to watch, and we can sell that more Texans would watch if A&M was a league member. Or that more people in the mid Atlantic watch if we add Va Tech, or more in Charlotte if we add NC.
But the entire point was simply that unless you can guarantee a bigger paycheck, you aren’t going to get the 12 member institutations to approve an addition, and I can’t conceive that those money grubbers would even begin to entertain an expansion idea that reduces the cut they get every year (coughClemsoncough)
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 11, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I admit that's a much more logical argument than "getting us into 'x' market."
Still, however, Texas A&M will bring along their fans, but won’t cause someone in Los Angeles or Montana (Mandel’d) to turn their TV sets on to watch a game they wouldn’t have watched if it was Auburn/Ole Miss instead of aTm/Ole Miss.
And aTm is the best available team, as Kyle said. I just honestly don’t see how any expansion would make the pie big enough that 14 slices would be worth as much as 12 slices of the current pie are.
by vineyarddawg on Aug 11, 2011 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
You, Kyle, and myself seem to all be in agreement on that aspect of it...
the logical answer to what they might go as much would be perspective and speculative, as in once Texas completes it’s transformation to independant or whatever it’s currently attempting, and Okie, Okie St, A&M, Kansas, Missou, etc become free agents so to speak, how does the landscape change? In essence, is the addition of the Aggies a preemptive move based on future expectations of the overall landscape evolving in to the super conferences everyone was clamoring about it last summer’s “hullabaloo” (which such an awesome word).
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
on the other hand
i’m REALLY ok with adding either of the oklahoma schools if only for the reason that it brings my beloved dawgs closer to the place I live on a more frequent basis.
/clearly obviously & purely for my own self
//also means y’all come here for the Roasting….but you bring the bbq.
I can bake like a demon.
then again
college station is like 7 hrs from my house which is of course totally doable for a game. Went there once for a charlie daniels concert. Them Aggies are hard core partiers – moved whole living room sets to a field and stayed for a week…….
merely request the yrs we play the aggies at TX be offset from the years we play Arky at Ark (more years/more games I get to go to)
/again with the self-serving interests & all….
I can bake like a demon.
Virginia Tech may not be an option
I believe the University of Virginia and their state legislature lobbied hard to get Virginia Tech into the ACC at the expense of Syracuse. Tech may be tethered to Virginia even more than OU is to Ok State.
"Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." Barry Switzer (meant, I believe, to describe UT and UT fans)
by Terra Clepta on Aug 11, 2011 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I think any of the possible additions...
aside from Missouri, or imo the unrealistic options of FSU, Clemson, or GT, would require taking another school with them. If Texas goes independant, the Texas legislature, like it did in the initial Big 12, may well demand they take 1 or more of Baylor and Texas Tech with them, same with one of the schools from NC, VA, or OK.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 11, 2011 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Some interesting discussion
Over at Gobbler Country – http://www.gobblercountry.com/2011/8/9/2354460/sec-expansion-rumors-pull-virginia-tech-in-just-when-we-think-were-out
Nobody really mentioning the political angle at all. Interesting to see how many folks aren’t excited about the prospect of an SEC schedule every year, but there’s about an equal amount of excitement.
by commodore_dude on Aug 11, 2011 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
The only team you list there who can compete in SEC is Oklahoma
I see no reason for Texas A&M’s desire to be in The SEC West to be granted by themselves.
Oklahoma on the other hand, would be a great addition.
Totally have to revamp The SEC Divisions. Someone will want Vandie in their division. Like The SEC West.
This has a lot more to do with internally at The SEC than it does for Texas A&M to announce for years now running that THEY want to be in The SEC West.
We already recruit the state of Texas very well. Everyone does. It is 1 of only 3 other states, Florida and California, that have more high school players who go on to the NFL than the state of Georgia.
Texas A&M does not have a following. Their TV ratings are very low.
Texas A&M has not been a power in a sorry league the Big XII.
How in the world does adding Texas A&M to The Mighty SEC West do anything for The SEC at all ?
Oh, besides we get to drive well over a thousand miles from some SEC East fan bases of relevance. Their parents still have the same distance to come watch them play here in SEC East teams like Florida or Georgia or South Carolina or Kentucky. Tennessee has traditionally obviously done well in Texas in recruiting, so adding Texas A&M doesn’t add anything for them, either.
Nice that The SEC is wanted by Texas A&M. Not at all clear to me what good it does to ANY SEC team.
I voted with the 7 percent who said no, not now, not ever.
I remain consistent on this.
I don’t mind screwing up a conference who has put up the last 5 NC in a row, but I would not do it to add the likes of Texas A&M. Let Texas A&M have a few good years, which they have proved they are incapable of, and then I will support them coming in The SEC.
Texas A&M is not a good team. They bring us nothing.
Oklahoma, now if they were packaged with Oklahoma who also was all set to join The SEC last year and had voted to do so when they held it together, barely last year if you call that holding the Big XII together with Texas’ sweetheart deal – I would only then change and vote for Texas A&M.
Frankly, I would prefer Texas and Oklahoma.
I want great teams to be added. Adding another also ran who does nothing ever at winning football games, is not my idea – might be their idea – of a reason to break up this SEC dynasty with a nobody football program like Texas A&M.
by Thomas Brown UGA on Aug 12, 2011 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions
You
Can
make
good
points
but
you
cant
use a
paragraph
and
its
annoying
Oh – and prefer or not, Texas aint coming. The whole problem is they are looking to go independent.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
last year, I thought Texas looked good. With what’s happened between then and now, though, I don’t see why any conference would want them.
"It'll only be reviewed because the guys up in the booth want to watch it a few times too." AJ's one-handed catch at Colorado
by AdamLilly on Aug 13, 2011 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think OU and OSU would go to separate conferences.
Missouri is pretty much the only remaining choice from the Big 12. I would think the SEC would try to balance A&M with an Eastern team. There are too many good rivalries in the West to slide Auburn out of the Division. Virginia Tech makes the most financial sense, so I assume they’ll try to land them and settle for Clemson if they can’t. I don’t think FSU would accept an invite.
by Biggus Rickus on Aug 11, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Believe me - Lubbock is DEFINITELY more depressing than ANY SEC locale
As Mac Davis (a Lubbock native, I believe) wrote, “Happiness is Lubbock, Texas in my rearview mirror.”
I keep hearing Clemson, what do they bring to the table?
I’m not trying to get in to the qualiy of their athletic programs either. But since we can all agree these moves are primarily, if not soley, financially motivated, where is the financial benefit of Clemson? I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that Clemson brings enough to the table to cover the increased split of conference revenues. Adding A&M increases gross revenue substantially with those markets, so that the current 12 will see their share stay or rise. I don’t see how Clemson can bring the same financial incentive. The NC schools, OK schools, VA schools, and Missou are neighboring states with markets we can use to increase revenue overall and in individual shares. Perhaps FSU as it increases our hold on Florida markets. But is there really that much gain from locking up whatever we don’t already get in the Upstate of South Carolina, or Palmetto State as a whole?
We need teams that add revenue, not just siphon off the current numbers. I also don’t think 14 is that feasible. If you’re going to expand, you almost have to go for the full out 16 to keep even numbers in the divisions, as well as likely make room for the almost certain piggybacking that’ll come as state legislatures demand you take a partner with any team we acquire (OK, Okie St, A&M, and either Tex Tech,. Baylor, or another Texas school, adding 4 to the west and sliding Bama/Auburn to the East? Two Texas schools and either VA/VT or NC/Duke?)
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 11, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
It is my understanding
that the TV market doesn’t matter quite as much for the SEC as it would for the B1G, since the SEC gets its money from ESPN while the B1G gets its money from its own TV network. It seems like the SEC deal would be more about whether the addition of the team increases the quality of the product than whether the addition of the team would cause the conference specific network to be carried in more households across the country.
Even if the SEC was considering creating a conference specific network that is driven by household subscription, I think Clemson may have a large enough footprint in the Charlotte and NC market to make it worthwhile.
2 things from a TV perspective
More affiliates for the SEC Network games = probably more money, I assume the local stations are paying a fair bit for the right but I can’t find any numbers. We’ve already got affiliates in almost every market in NC, but none in VA, WV, or MD. We actually do in Dallas and Houston already, but only 4 markets total in TX, and there are about 15 full markets there and 4 or 5 smaller ones. Also, it gets us a couple more RNS for the FSN/CSS games – probably both MASN and CSN Washington in the VA market, and if any parts of Texas weren’t getting the FSN games already, they sure would now.
And for the national games, ESPN and CBS would still be able to charge more for advertisements because there would no doubt be more eyeballs in TX and VA than there are now.
by commodore_dude on Aug 11, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
And one other very important thing
I believe there are provisions for us to pretty much renegotiate the TV deals with any expansion. 24/7 SEC Network, anyone?
by commodore_dude on Aug 11, 2011 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
But while we get money from ESPN
we would need to convince them to pay more for the increased product. I agree, maintianing or improving the overall quality is a part of that sales pitch, but major college athletics, in spite of their amatuerism and purity charades, is a money game. If we can’t increase revenue for the current 12 members,and improve it to the point where they not only cover the extra shares taken out but also increase the individual pay day of the 12, they aren’t going to approve any additional members taking their money.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
by Mr. Sanchez on Aug 11, 2011 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
If Texas becomes football independant, ...
I wonder where they go for hoops. There are no hoops independants, so who do they align with? Conference USA, the WAC, the MWC? I’ll find that interesting.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
The MWC
Is going to need an all-but-football school to balance out Hawaii as a football-only school, so that would make sense…ish. Geographically, the Southland would make the most sense, but that will never happen.
by commodore_dude on Aug 11, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
However
I still think we’ll see a Pac-16 or Big Ten+6, taking Texas, Oklahoma and two other schools at some point in this decade.
by commodore_dude on Aug 11, 2011 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
It's not that crazy of an idea, really
I mean, it would be pretty much the same deal we’re already doing with ND (and we’d probably do an ND/Texas/BE bowl pool like we do for some of our bowl deals now with ND — we non-ND Big East fans hate them, but the conference insists we getter better bowls that way), and TCU could use a travel partner for basketball and non-revenue sports.
FSU
Man I’d like to see them in the SEC. It would keep their big rivalry with Walk-on Muschump and I think they play good football. And since I’m in Jax I still like talking some trash about 2002 SB
From one Murray to another.... BEAT UF!
Re:FSU
I would LOVE to see FSU in the SEC. And that FSU/UF rivalry would just explode
"Because it's Everything Auburn isn't, Better than Tech, a Southerner's Dream and a Northerner's wish; the Pride of Georgia; The Ultimate College Experience; Downtown Shopping; Florida's Worst Nightmare,
And A Place That Can Get in Your blood and Stay Forever..." HOW ‘BOUT THEM DAWGS?!?!?!?!?
For the same reasons South Carolina won't let Clemson in
Florida would fight tooth and nail to keep FSU out. The recruiting benefits of selling the SEC over the ACC for each would compel them to work to keep their primary in-state rivals out of the conference.
Hi, Seminole fan here
I’m just not sure there is much of a tangible benefit there. FSU, when it has competent coaching, recruits very well regardless. Clemson might benefit from the SEC pitch, but how much could people expect FSU to benefit? The 2010 class was great, the 2011 is shaping up to be equally great.
If uf wanted to block FSU solely based on the “SEC recruiting pitch”… well, that sounds a bit insecure. And, I don’t think they are – or should be – insecure.
Be carefull going independent......
Sure, it makes financial sense now, but as these conferences continue to grow who will the independents play? I bet we gain 4 teams in the next 2-3 years into the SEC. So, if all of the major conferences follow suit, and you know they will, then out-of-conference play will be a thing of the past. The Texas and Notre Dames will be stuck playing each other and 3rd tier teams. Thats going to kill their strength of schedule and hurt them in the poles. They will end up being another Boise State.
My wish list of new members is a s follows:
(Disclaimer- These may not be the best teams but they fit and give existing members in-state rivals)
1) Texas A&M – They fit geographically and culturaly. An old LSU rival.
2) FSU- Florida’s instate rival and an up and coming. They may still be scared of the competition though.
3)Georgia Tech- Georgia’s instate rival. They could play Vanderbilt in the geek bowl every year.
4) Missouri makes more sense but I’d rather have Oklahoma.
Ranking of Eastern expansion candidates ...
Far and away #1 = Virginia Tech – expands TV footprint while fitting culturally. Seems that VA politicians would be okay with it, because both of its big time schools would be in big time conferences, and could agree to play annually as non-conference foes if needed for political peace. Downside is that VaTech consistently fields very good FB teams, thereby upping the competition level in the East. IF that’s a key concern, then see #2 choice below.
#2 = NC State – Expands TV footprint to bordering growing state with fertile recruiting grounds. I know, I know. UNC is more attractive, but the strong sense I have is that UNC would never part from Duke. NC State, however, might, like A&M, welcome the opportunity to “get out from under big brother” and “be all that it can be” as the only school from its state in the SEC. For current SEC East teams, NC State would be a fantastic addition, given its mediocre sports teams that would not figure to become ultra-competitive rivals, AND its state’s fertile recruiting grounds would be prime hunting territory for top recruits. The East teams would be better off than the West teams, because I sense that A&M is a sleeping giant that could become extremely competitive in short order (indeed, its current FB team is highly ranked).
Distant ##3&4 = FSU and Clemson – Neither expands the TV footprint, and therefore neither adds as much $$$$$$$$$ as VaTech or NC State would add. Neither’s out of conference rival (UF and USCe) would likely want anything to do with sharing its state with another SEC rival. For current East teams, FSU and Clemson would also be a much greater threat than NC State as a competitive rival.
I disagree
I don’t think VT or NCSt greatly enhance the television aspect. VT is a new market, but a small one. NCSt… well, they’re probably #3 in their state.
FSU doesn’t expand the footprint, but brings eyes on a national level. Under the current SEC television contracts, you want national eyes for ratings on ESPN, etc. I don’t think Clemson brings that, certainly not to the same level.
And to some previous posters wondering whether or not we’d be scared of the competition – no, we wouldn’t be. I think we’d fit right in.
Personally, if the ACC became proactive and committed itself to football, I’d be happy there. Tons of potential for an ACC Network (like the BTN, LHN, etc.), due to the markets we’re in. But, I don’t have a lot of confidence that the ACC will position itself properly. Thus, I’d like the SEC. Our campus is actually much closer to more of the SEC teams than ACC teams anyway.
We already realigned...
I believe UCLA, Washington, Boston College, and Wisconsin are now in our conference.
Get with it Kyle.
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
by Jman781 on Aug 11, 2011 12:04 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Hitting the nail on the head,
T. Kyle did it:
I do not believe the SEC presently needs to expand. For all the hullabaloo about radical realignment last summer, at the end of the day, the Pac-Why mess with a good thing?1012 and the BigTenTen opted for the model the SEC pioneered: twelve teams, two divisions, one conference championship game. It ain’t broke.
I assume that we would add another team if we added A&M to keep the divisions equally sized. That means either (a) everyone has to replace an OOC game with an additional SEC game or (b) we eliminate one of the rotating interdivisional games. The former is a bad idea: it means getting rid of traditional rivalries or losing a home game every other year. In addition, it makes an already tough SEC schedule even tougher, which means even more attrition, which means lessening the chances of continuing the SEC’s five year dominance of the BCS.
Eliminating one of the rotating interdivisional games doesn’t sit right with me, either. Assuming that we continued the current home-and-home rotating format (which really only seems fair), we could go a decade without facing some of our conference brethren. Are we even really even in the same conference at that point? Do you really want to go 10 years without a valid excuse to risk (and have the time of) your life in Red Stick or ogle coeds at the Grove?
IF the present conference alignment remains as it is....
you are quite correct. The SEC need not do anything IF things stay the same.
The problem being, the present conference aligment WILL be changing with the demise, certainly, of the Big-12 and, probably, of the Big East.
The PAC-12 TV contract already pays those 12 schools $21 Million per year, for the next 12 years. If the SEC fails to act on the immense opportunity to move into the Texas market represented by Texas A & M, the PAC-12 will not fail to do so!
The PAC-12 knows the power of big TV market presence. TV advertisers pay a premium for Top-10 TV market viewers. The SEC now has one (Atlanta). The PAC-12 now has two, both significantly larger than the Atlanta TV market. The PAC-12 could double their Top-10 TV market presence merely by picking up Texas A & M.
The SEC may generate a million viewers in the Birmingham market, but TV advertisers would pay more for 500,000 viewers in LA. That’s why the PAC-12 TV contract is bigger than ours.
Lose Texas A & M to the PAC-12, or even the B1G-Ten, and the SEC’s TV revenues will decline relative to the other conferences for lack of big TV markets in SEC states.
While we’re at it, let’s get Virginia Tech and its Washington DC market as well.
More eyes on the tube in bigger TV markets results in more dollars for the SEC schools. A & M and VA Tech expand the size of the SEC’s pizza. Let’s do it before the SEC loses its chance.
by Ohio-On-The-Gulf Dog on Aug 11, 2011 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
A Modest Proposal
Y’all are thinking small-time with your candidates for an eastern expansion team to add along with Texas A&M. There’s a school in a state that borders an SEC state with an unimpeachable commitment to football, a huge fan following, brings another major recruiting hotbed into the SEC, and that clearly embraces SEC values (as exemplified by the defending national champion* Auburn Tigers).
Ohio State to the SEC.
Granted, this leaves the Big Ten again at an awkward 11, but that’s an easy problem to fix, simply let Penn State stay in the Big Ten’s academic consortia while playing sports with its traditional eastern rivals.
How about we just trade AU for Ohio State?
It would open up another TV market and it would be another reason for the NCAA to snoop around the Big Ten a few years longer.
For all the hullabaloo about radical realignment last summer
I see what you did there.
by 1st Generation Ag on Aug 11, 2011 12:45 PM EDT reply actions
Really?
You knew the words to TAMU’s fight song? (Who knows? Maybe it’s more well-known than I am aware.)
Impressive.
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
Kyle and I both are close with members of the aTm family.
If I’m not mistaken, for Kyle it’s blood relation (sort of), and for me it’s just very-close-friend relation.
by vineyarddawg on Aug 11, 2011 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Mark Bradley
Referenced it, too…
I’m not impressed anymore ;-)
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
Much ado about nothing
We would have to get someone east, for the east, or close to the east to have some balance. There are few options. Our system works great, why screw with it.
Or I could say Missouri isn’t good enough for our conference and they will get mad as heck and we can revisit that flame war.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Or...
A team like Auburn would have to move to the East!
I know Kyle would love battling Florida and Auburn for the East each season…
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
Now, I am a UGA grad, so forgive me, but if we move AU east and put A&M in the west
that still leaves 13 teams, right? So we would still have to add someone to the west.
This conference is hard enough as it is.
Damn, UGA, AU, UF, UT, SC in the east. that hurts.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Ignoring the below comment by UGAVike*
Some rumored added teams other than TAMU are potentially Missouri or Oklahoma.
I’m merely pointing out that Auburn is actually more “East” than Vandy, at least geographically. Thus, a solution would be to add two western teams, like TAMU and Oklahoma, and move Auburn (or another squad) to the East.
*I’m ignoring UGAVike because I’m thinking of a solution, here are a few off the top of my head:
a. The “traditional rivals” would have to be rethought, since, in my scenario, Auburn and Georgia would lose their rival, Tennessee would lose theirs if Bama switched to Auburn, etc. snowball effect…Georgia would end up with TAMU as its rival!
The SEC adopts a 9-game SEC slate and allows for 2 rival games each (Thus, allowing Bama to maintain its games against both UT and Auburn), rotating the other teams every 7 years. Can this work? I don’t want to do the math!c. Maybe realign the entire conference? Tradition be damned!
My head’s spinning…
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
Slight problem (dont mean to be a downer here)
But if the divisions were increased to 7 teams, then each team would have 6 intra-divisional games. If the SEC adopted a 9 SEC game slate and if two of the interdivisional games were rival games, then there would only be 1 rotating game per year, and it would take 10 years to cycle through a home and away with each crossdivisional team.
To maintain 2 cross division rivals and 2 rotating games, the SEC slate would have to be extended to 10.
Which is why...
If the SEC did expand, we would simply have to do away with some “rivalries.”
If the SEC teams are unwilling break tradition, then don’t expand. (Although, they did expand by adding South Carolina and Arkansas only two decades ago…)
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
And Bama would have to choose
between playing Auburn and Tennessee yearly. No chance one of those rivalries is lost.
See above...
And besides, what kind of sway does Bama have with the SEC?
Pfft!
"Don't go ninja'n nobody that don't need ninja'n!" ~ Kung Fu Hillbilly.
This seems like as good a place as any
to introduce myself. I’m an Aggie, Class of 2005, and I’ve been reading Dawgsports ever since last November. I married a two-time Dawg – my wife got her Bachelor’s (magna cum laude, I might add) and Master’s from UGA. We’d been dating about a month at the time of the 2009 Independence Bowl, so once our relationship survived that there wasn’t much we couldn’t handle.
I gotta say, I really enjoy reading Dawgsports, more so than reading A&M’s SBNation blog. Love the writing, the prose, the references to Southern culture, and best of all it has the advantage of the complete lack of Texas fans who show up to crap all over every blog post in the comments.
by 1st Generation Ag on Aug 11, 2011 4:59 PM EDT reply actions
Welcome, 1st Generation Ag!
Glad to have you! I have a close friend who is an Aggie, so I sympathize strongly with your side of the Texas power struggle. :-)
by vineyarddawg on Aug 11, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Houston Cougars
The SEC should consider the Houston Cougars for expansion. NIce city, easy travel for every school and would easily be able to ramp up its level of play if it were selling the SEC. Located in a large TV market, Houston, combined with Texas A&M, makes the SEC highly competitive in eastern Texas.
Fair points, but I'm not sure what Houston delivers that Texas A&M doesn't.
I would, however, like the opportunity to get revenge on the Cougars for some of Georgia’s losses to them!
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Aug 11, 2011 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I cast my vote
For VA Tech. That would open up the DMV (that’s D.C., Maryland, Virginia ya’ll) market and it might make it easier for me to watch all of the SEC games from up here in College Park, MD. Last year I had to watch almost all of the UGA games on ESPN3.com. Not sure if that was because of the region or because of UGA’s schedule/record, but I’d much rather watch my dawgs play bawl on my TV than on my laptop.
HD TV, laptop with HDMI outlet, HDMI cable
There you go! Watching it on TV!
…
via laptop
(Yes, I get your point)
The 984 Has Spoken!
I drop $180 every year with game day, they don't air some of the games, and many arent even in HD, which pisses me off to no end.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I voted "No, not ever".
Someone please help me understand how Texas A&M doesn’t fit into the category of other schools (Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, arguably Missouri) make good cultural and financial sense, but not good geographic sense.
The Aggies are 340 miles from the closest current SEC member (LSU) and if added to the current SEC West, would be over 750 miles from division foe Auburn. If they were to make the SECCG and travel to the hub of SEC football in Atlanta, that journey would be over 200 miles longer than that of any current conference member (Arkansas).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
