VTTW Board Index

"They're taking away everything that makes college football special, and it's all about money."

He's right, and he's only stating the obvious, but it's an obvious that fans have been reluctant to realize thus far.

He added that what makes college football fun is having teams that you hate and going into an opposing stadium and seeing 10,000 of your fans in there. With super-conferences, you'll have schools that are 2,000 miles away and you "won't know one single person who is a fan of that school. Who are you going to rub it in on when you win?"  :biggrin:

You say fans have been reluctant to realize, but I don't think that's the case for all fans. For me it's more that I think it's inevitable and I've accepted it.

They are chasing the money and as much as that sucks, they will still play and we will all still watch.

1) I agree it's not best for the game, but that it will happen. Hey I'd be fine going back to 11 games.

2) If you're going to do it, do it right. The SEC can do it right without making travel difficult.

3) Dooley gets a very nice paycheck because of all that money - but I still like having a traditionalist as coach.

He's stating the obvious in the last part of his quote. But I don't neccessarily think it takes away from what makes college football special.  I love college fb over NFL primarily for the pagentry, excitment and the environment. Conference expansion won't change this, and they will never remove some of the traditional rivalries, IMO (Auburn/Alabama, Ole Myth/MSU, UT/Alabama, etc.). The specialness of college football, I think, will remain.

Also, I don't see how Super Conferences can proceed without going to a 13-game schedule.  And quite possibly, there will be four divisions in these conferences instead of two. Four 4-team divisions. The winner of each division will play in a semi-final game (14th game) and then play in a conference championship game (15th game), and then on to a bowl game (16th game).   Wouldn't that be fun?

It isn't the case for all, but it's the case for many. In listening to the "water cooler discussions" fans are having about conference expansion, I hear many of them saying things like "We need to pick up this team because we need that market," or "We don't need that team because they don't bring anything to the table," without really stopping to realize that the benefits for them or their schools are somewhat negligible. My favorite is "If we don't do this we'll be left behind." Some are motivated by their own interests (those who think that super-conferences will inevitably lead to a playoff, for instance) but many are just swallowing what they're being fed by those who stand to benefit most from realignment.

Well, I don't think that "left behind" is the right way to put it but count me among those who think that the SEC should be leading the expansion charge now just as they did in '92. Expansion in '92 is the biggest reason why the SEC is as dominant as it is today... that led to bigger TV contracts which led to more money and the addition of the SECCG showcased the league for what it is.

I do think there are a lot of people out there who are swallowing what they are being told 'just because' but just because one believes something without researching it doesn't make it untrue.

The rumors DJ mentioned on the VS that the SEC will be done at 14 are interesting. That may be the perfect choice for the SEC if it takes in A&M and Missouri. I've been having trouble coming up with a good way to get to 16 teams comfortably anyway.

* Taking A&M and Mizzou potentially adds 4 large TV markets (Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston), likely growing the per-team share of TV money substantially.
* It adds teams with (at least recently) a history of reasonably competitive play in both football and basketball, and strong academics.
* It wouldn't necessitate a major overhaul of the SEC schedule if divisions are chosen correctly.
* It wouldn't add ANY teams that don't bring substantial TVs. I think almost all the teams discussed from the east were questionable when it comes to adding TV revenue.

I liked the idea of Virginia Tech, but that would be a questionable move for both parties. The ACC may be essentially raid-proof anyway if it gets to 16. There is no Big East team that brings enough to the table, IMO (I'm looking at you, WVU). OU seems set on going west rather than east. So who else is there to add to get to 16?

My question, too. With the ACC expanding, it seems probable that they aren't going to lose anyone...and, in fact, that's probably why they moved so quick on expansion, because you have to figure that it was probable that they were going to lose at least one team to the SEC.

So who does that leave? TCU? Probably not. West Virginia, Cincinnati and Louisville add very little to the SEC.

If Missouri is placed in the East, I'm okay with moving to 14 teams...although I'm afraid 16 is ultimately inevitable for the very reasons Clay Travis pointed out earlier today.

I think Mizzou would go to the west and they'd shift Auburn East

This would break up at least one significant rivalry. I hope they wouldn't do that.

That is my understanding

That's the conventional wisdom, obviously. If it happens, it sucks. I know it makes sense from a geographical standpoint. But if geography is the driving factor, is Missouri really in the Southeast?

I have a feeling that when it comes right down to it, Mizzou would go to the East and Auburn would stay in the West. That keeps all the existing rivalries intact. If you shift Auburn east, the Auburn-Tennessee rivalry being renewed is the silver lining, but that's fairly insignificant. All of Generation Y cannot remember when UT-Auburn was a big deal, and most of Generation X doesn't remember it, either. Losing the UT-Bama rivalry would be a much bigger deal. Surely that will be avoided.

I think you're right.  I don't really know the origin of the "Auburn to the East" rumor, but IIANM (If I Am Not Mistaken, lol) it comes from fans looking at the map and deciding it had to be Auburn since they were already the farthest East.  Well newsflash...Vandy is already farther East than Auburn.   So this tells us that pragmatism and not strictly geography did play a part.

It makes perfect sense from a league management POV to put Missouri in the East.  They then have a "traditional rival" in Texas A&M that minimizes changes to the existing schedule.  It also is a fairly balanced move in terms of football power, although Texas A&M has more tradition than Missouri.  Missouri has had some good teams lately though.

I do recognize that Missouri is much more of a stretch than Vandy geographically though. 

If you want geographical purity, add WVU or Louisville.  Those are natural fits when you ignore TV markets and academics (though only WVU can compare in terms of good football teams...but again, Louisville has had some decent teams recently).

geography doesn't matter much any more. Arkansas or Louisiana aren't really in the SE. TX A&M isn't either. Colorado isn't really out west.

That being the case, what makes you think Missouri would go to the West and Auburn to the East?

I think it was in the aTm time frame, Auburn represetative said that they would do what whas in the best interests of the SEC, including moving to the East (they are the most Eastern of the West division teams).