Big mistake by SEC leaders!!!

The powers that be in the SEC office have made a monumental mistake with the second round of expansion.  There seems to have been zero forethought into the ramifications of the product being sold to a national audience.  What makes the SEC, or any conference for that matter, such an attractive view for a national audience?  The two teams involved in that weeks game.  And for the better part of the last twenty years we have been able to have games in our national 3:30 Eastern Time slot that garnered the national attention.  Games like Tennessee vs Alabama, LSU vs Florida and Auburn vs UGA.  With the latest round of expansion we are dangerously close to losing those annual match-ups.  Right, wrong or indifferent the confernce is not going to go to a nine game schedule.  Which leaves us with two options; keep the traditional one cross divisional rival and rotate the other six teams from the other division in two year home and home's (which means it will take twelve years to play the other six teams twice).  Or do away with the one permenant team and rotate all seven in a staggered two year home and home, meaning one team is falling off the schedule and picking up another in every season.  The second scenario would bring a crashing end to the annual, and nationally interesting to college football fans, games between AL/TN, AU/UGA and LSU/UF.  The "Third Saturday in October" would only be every four years or so.  The "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry" would only be every four years or so.  The game between the Swamp states would only be every four years or so.  I fear all we have done is added more water to our soup to make it look like more, only to remove the good taste that was already there.  Simply, we have watered down our product.  And I don't like it.

Hey Botta, I made a post yesterday about how having 16 teams and four divisions would give a little more flexibility to the scheduling.  It would still mean that some rivalries would not happen every year, but at least you could see every other team in the league every three years, instead of only twice every 12.

The league needs to ask itself if it wants to preserve games like Ole Miss-Alabama instead of Alabama-Tennessee, or Georgia-Vanderbilt vs Georgia-Auburn.  It would also mean poaching two more teams, and like you said, the product has already been watered down.

       I fear all we have done is added more water to our soup to make it look like more, only to remove the good taste that was already there.  Simply, we have watered down our product.  And I don't like it.    



I have to agree 100% with you......I was really happy when Ark joined the SEC 20 years ago because I knew how great the SEC was......not sure how all the SEC fans and teams felt about that, but I do believe that the two teams, ARK and SC have added positively to the conference and have become now solid members.......now with the two more teams added the rivalry games and other great annual games will be lost.........I don't believe the SEC needed to expand, the greatest and strongest conference in the country could have survived still with all the  expansions going on around the NCAA.....to me Texas A&M will be the only team of the two to add anything to the league....what can Missouri possibly add to make the SEC better?

Guys, you are right.  I don't think we have put ourselves in a very good position.  And Bornahog, I am not even really talking about the who (TAM and MO).  I am not knocking them in the slightest.  Heck, if it were Texas and Florida State, we would still be offering too much of our history for a quick buck.  I could be wrong, but I believe college football fans enjoy watching those traditional games I mentioned.  I know I enjoy watching SoCal-ND and OK-TX, because of the teams involved.  I miss Nebraska-Oklahoma.  That is a game that SHOULD be played.  We don't want to be a part of killing a rivalry like that one.  Heck, you and Texas should play EVERY year.  Florida and Florida State do.  But I guess it is even worse when you lose, or could lose, annual rivalries with teams that are STILL in the same conference.

Simple solution is move Aub/Bama to the east and UK/Mizzou to the west.  LSU/UF is not an ancient rivalry and don't want to play every year anyway.  You keep your ancient precious rivalries and you whiney whiners can stop whining.  

I can see that from your view point Kentucky fan.  It doesn't matter which division you are in or who's on the schedule.  Either way, you are still going to play in about four homecoming games a year.  Yours and at least three of your road games.

Botta, I know you are saying that the SEC is not going to go to 9 IC games, but I thing the conference will be forced to do that before too long. It just makes too much sense from so many angles.  

For one thing, it gives the conference seven more SEC v.SEC matchups every season. That's 13% more SEC football to sell to media networks.

Secondly, it boosts the SEC's strength of schedule. Hopefully there won't be as many Furmans and Citadels on the schedule.  This may not seem important; most SEC folks already think the SEC teams play the toughest schedule just by being in the SEC.  But whether this is true or not, the fact is the computer SOS favored Oklahoma State heavily this past year and almost cost Alabama a berth in the championship game just because OSU had that extra Big 12 IC game. Now that the Pac 12, the Big 12, and the ACC have all gone to the 9 game schedule, it's not hard to foresee a scenario where the computers cost an SEC team a championship berth.

Third, since it seems likely that we're going to get a 4 team playoff at least, it's going to be easier to get a team in the championship bracket, so that should offset the increased difficulty of the schedule.  1 loss probably won't kill an SEC team in the hunt.

Fourth, and to your point, we can easily accomodate the traditional cross-divisional rivalries, and still maintain 2 rotating teams (unless we go to 16 teams, of course).

The only reasons I can see against it is we might cost 1 or maybe 2 teams a bowl game due to the potential extra losses.  To me that seems unimportant when compared to the risk of losing some of the oldest rivalry games in football.  

LSU and Florida play every year and have for years yet I don't feel any rivalry in the least with them. I'd rather go back to playing Auburn every year. So losing LSU every year would be a good thing IMO. Tennessee isn't as much a rivalry as in the 90's with Spurrier and Fulmer. Florida State is our biggest rival so they better not screw with that and then Georgia. FSU and Georgia are the only two teams the Gators need to play every year.

Hey Botta, I made a post yesterday about how having 16 teams and four divisions would give a little more flexibility to the scheduling.  It would still mean that some rivalries would not happen every year, but at least you could see every other team in the league every three years, instead of only twice every 12.

1.  It's all about the money this expansion will allow us to renegotiate our network deals and create our own network.  Current each school recieves 17 million a piece but the PAC and B1G with their deals are at 21 million a piece so you have to think a new SEC deal could be worth as much as 25 million or more per school.  Too much money to pass up.

2.  Huwaryu is absolutely correct a 16 team 4 division organization is the future but it will take a while to get there and it has to be the right the teams.  Also really NCCA rules need to change in order to allow divisional playoffs that feed into a championship game.

Imagine if we have 4 divisions and have a divisional championship in Dallas, a divisonal championship in Atlanta and then we move the championship game to New Orleans.  It would be huge and the net worth of the games would be substantial.  This is where I think the SEC and the other conferences are headed but once again it will take time.  Eventually these divisional "play-offs" will come to be the first round in an overall CFB play off system and the beauty of it is the conference maintains control of the first two rounds.

I could be dead wrong but I think this is where we are headed but it will take 20 years or more to get there.

     I can see that from your view point Kentucky fan.  It doesn't matter which division you are in or who's on the schedule.  Either way, you are still going to play in about four homecoming games a year.  Yours and at least three of your road games.    



So funny and so true....you nailed it!   

In the end there is no way to keep the SEC where is was 20 yrs ago. Been 20 yrs since last additions. Neither has won a title. Neither has won a major bowl. Both managed their first top 10 finish. Pretty poor track record to say the least. Neither have seemed to find a natural rival within the league. Now you are adding 2 more teams of middling characteristics. There can be no doubt the original 10 would have been an awesome league with a 9 game schedule. All the great rivals and would have probably fostered more hatred between schools, but that is gone.  In the end, there was a chioce to be made between protecting the product or making money. Shocking, money won out

Bruner, I wasn't even debating on whether we should or shouldn't play a nine game schedule.  I was pointing out, or trying to anyway, that according to what I have heard and read, it looks as if there are only two options that the powers that be are going to consider at this point.  And that is the one permanent and twelve years to play the other six or the staggered rotating schedule against all seven of the other division.  Maybe I am in the minority, but again, wasn't making an arguement for what should or shouldn't be, just pointing out what is and is about to happen.  And from a selfish standpoint, I added that I don't like it.  Auburn already lost long running rivalries with Florida and Tennessee in the first expansion.  Now it appears we have a very good chance of losing Georgia in this second expansion.  For the record Bruner, I wouldn't have a problem with going to a nine game conference schedule.

Hey Coda, what you said is fair, that neither SC nor Arkie have accomplished much since the expansion in terms of major bowls or league titles, but you can probably say the same for several other leagues that have expanded, even if the conditions of their expansion were different.

What have Baylor, Iowa State, or Texas Tech done since the creation of the Big Twelb?  Has Boston College or Miami won anything since they joined the ACC?  I realize that the time has been much shorter for the ACC expansion, and that Virginia Tech has done very well after their switch to the ACC.

Do you think you're being a little harsh?  What do you expect from teams that switch leagues, that they come in and dominate it immediately and forever?  That's not the only measure of whether or not an expansion worked out well.  As for the intense rivalry portion, I don't know if that would necessarily have happened with ten teams and a nine-game schedule.  Teams can play each other every year, and the outcomes can be so one-sided to the point where it's not really a rivalry at all from one team's point of view.  The ACC that existed from 1993-2004 had nine teams and an eight-game schedule, but the Seminoles whooped everybody's @$$ so badly that they STILL haven't managed to forge any intense hate-filled rivalries with any other football team in the league, and when Miami joined, they went back to that rivalry being paramount.

You know what it might be crazy but I like expansion.  I think it will naturally lead into a playoff system and that is what I want more than anything so any sacrifice is worth it to me.  Sure it is going to take years and it might be 50 before it happens but I would really like for college football to crown at least one TRUE national champion before I die and if that means Auburn looses the Georgia game oh well it will be missed but it is a casualty I can accept.

Hey Coda, what you said is fair, that neither SC nor Arkie have accomplished much since the expansion in terms of major bowls or league titles, but you can probably say the same for several other leagues that have expanded, even if the conditions of their expansion were different.

You can go a little beyond that.  In the last twenty years, most conferences have only had 2-3 teams dominating their conference.  Can you fault South Carolina and Arkansas on not beating out Florida, LSU, Georgia, 10AhC, Alabama, and Auburn every year? 

South Carolina/Arkansas has had just about as much success as over half the teams in the B1G, Big12, Pac12, and ACC has in their own conference.

Texas are different situation that was a merger of 2 dying leagues. You do bring up an excellent pt, outside of VT the history of expansion has generally failed to deliver the promised results. PSU and Arkansas have seen less than stellar results since both joined their perspective leagues. Bill Byrne famously commented on that 2 yrs ago. There are long adjustment periods, as recruiting areas change and styles change.

 ACC is a lazy comparison to the SEC. Most of the schools are basketball schools. SEC had 7-8 top 20 historic programs that were dedicated to football. Passion was already there and I think it is hard to say that playing every yr would not at least maintain the rivalries, if not, intensify them. OU/Neb is a great example of that. SEC teams had 80 yr histories with teams. UK and Vandy would probably never really develop any given their success rates, but could Florida and Bama have developed a great one? Auburn/Florida? That we will never know

I do not fault South Carolina. They were the 4th or 5th chioce and were a necessary evil to get a championship game. They we a nobody, so it was a nice move for them. Arkansas is a different story. They had a very good program historically. Take a look at what they did the 20 yrs prior to joining. Fact that Arkansas is being lumped in with "half the teams in the B1G, Big12, Pac12, and ACC " proves my  pt

Can you fault South Carolina and Arkansas on not beating out Florida, LSU, Georgia, 10AhC, Alabama, and Auburn every year?

No but you with the law of averages you would think you guys would have won one since 1933...sorry Vehemon the devil made me do it! 

ACC is a lazy comparison to the SEC. Most of the schools are basketball schools. SEC had 7-8 top 20 historic programs that were dedicated to football. Passion was already there and I think it is hard to say that playing every yr would not at least maintain the rivalries, if not, intensify them. OU/Neb is a great example of that. SEC teams had 80 yr histories with teams. UK and Vandy would probably never really develop any given their success rates, but could Florida and Bama have developed a great one? Auburn/Florida? That we will never know

Without expansion, the championship game and the block buster network deals I doubt the SEC would be at the level it is right now.  The revenue generated from the league has brought on major investment in coaches and facilities that without we probably don't win the last 6 national championships.

In my mind the expansion has paid off huge and this round will also and probably quicker than the last one.  It could be argued all of this might have happened anyway but the SEC has truly become a national brand and the rating on CBS prove it and I don't think that happens without the expansion, championship game and national titles.

However we will see if I am right all we have to do is watch the PAC.  They expanded, brokered a big network deal and just hired a bunch of top notch coaching talent plus many of the schools have annouced facility upgrades.  My prediction is that the PAC will become quite the force and will be knocking heads with the SEC year in and year out for the title.

The Big 12 seems to always be in the survival mode and everyone determined of having their own network instead of working collectively to maximize the benefit for all so I predict here 1 to 2 teams will do well but the conference as a whole will just exist.

It will be fun to watch and see what happens.

Coda your an idiot!  Texas blows and Arkansas is better than them now and will be for years to come so you are a loser!


ARkansas and South Carolina have wone National Championships in the SEC.  Arknasas and South Carolina have made the league stronger in all sports.  Attendence is great for both programs. 

Adding Mizzou and Texas A M brings in two very large TV markets as well as large fan bases.  Both schools have above average sports programs in all sports. 

The SEC and the presidents said they only wanted to expand the footprint of the SEC and they did into two of the largest markets available in SEC territory.