OT: SEC Empire Expansion

Submitted by formerlyanonymous on May 5th, 2010 at 12:48 PM

As batshit crazy as some of Brian's ideas have been, Team Speed Kills (SBNation SEC blog) had a fan post promoted to the front page that not only takes the cake for bat-shit crazy, but it also takes the cake for so crazy it just might work.

The SEC Empire: Why the SEC should take the lead, not the backseat on Expansion

He has a 20 team conference by poaching from the ACC and Big 12, with 4 divisions, 3 of which get their own auto-BCS bid. The fourth division is more the "basketball" division with Kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina, Tennessee, and either Notre Dame or Clemson. Yes, we're talking that bat-shit crazy.

Seriously, give it a read. Blows most bat-shit crazy plans out of the water.

Comments

DesHow21

May 5th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

bat-shit crazy:

1. Slive has actual balls.

2. Preserves rivalries and would make any B10 expansion get exactly 1 article coverage on the 13th page of most newspapaers.

willywill9

May 5th, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^

That is a wild idea, and I kind of like it; however, I think he needs to get rid of the Geographical names so that he isn't stuck with an "SEC North".  As he mentions, this division is the weakest point of this proposal.  The SEC "East" and "West" are stacked.

jcgary

May 5th, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^

Interesting proposal but I find it interesting how he pretty much assumes the SEC would get most of the Big 12's bowl contracts along with the ACC's. 

Also if both the Pac10 & Big 10 expand which he basically says will happen how come the SEC gets 3 auto bids to a BCS bowl and the Big 10 & Pac 10 still only have 1 each?

I like the idea of a two week interconference playoff.  That would be a great two weeks of football! 

PhillipFulmersPants

May 5th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^

elements of the B10 expansion is new TV markets for the Big Ten Network, particularly in the coveted Northeast, correct?  I wonder what the deal the SEC would look like with ESPN in this 20-team scenario versus the one they announced last year. Beyond Texas markets, would they be picking up a ton more SEC viewers? I'm thinking specifically of the the overlap of SEC and ACC states like Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida, and wonder if this would limit some of the revenue potential. (note: i'm assuming there's no way ND would touch this idea). I suppose ESPN/SEC Network would benefit from a sweetened SEC brand, and mini conference playoff would generate nice revenue.

Anyway, a fairly intriguing idea.  Thanks for the link.

funkywolve

May 5th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^

If I'm the SEC I look at two 8 team divisions.  Bump Alabama and Auburn to the east so the east would be:

Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vandy, UK and South Carolina.

Add Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Okie St to Ol Miss, Miss St, LSU and Arkansas.

Almost all the old rivalry games are preserved and you get Texas and Arkansas playing annually again.

Seth9

May 5th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^

1. The idea wrongly assumes that the SEC can get any team they want. Now while all of the athletic departments in question may be willing to join the SEC (outside of Notre Dame and some of the ACC schools mentioned in the second scenario), a lot of the universities in question would absolutely refuse to be associated with the SEC for academic reasons. For instance, Texas has and will continue to refuse to be associated with the SEC because the SEC's academics are so far below theirs. Academics would also be an issue with Virginia, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Miami, Georgia Tech, and possibly Virginia Tech. While this may not be a game-breaker for every school on the list, it certainly will create issues.

2. The purpose of this plan is SEC dominance, meaning that the focus is not improving the situation for the individual member schools, but improving the profile of an organization that's sole purpose is too promote the welfare of its members. Unless the presidents of the SEC universities decide to be loyal to the idea of SEC supremacy to the point of making financial sacrifices, this will never be the goal of expansion.

3. To follow up on point #2, a number of potential expansion teams do not add enough to the conference to merit inclusion in expansion. In the first model, I would cut out Clemson, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, and Miami, because a 16 team conference with the other teams mentioned is better for each individual member than a 20 team conference with those said teams. In the second model, I would cut out Louisville, Virginia, the NC State/West Virginia option, and 1-3 of numerous other listed expansion teams (Duke, Clemson, and/or Georgia Tech).

There are other problems with the model, particularly regarding the assumptions on bowl bids, but these are perhaps the biggest ones.

Search4Meaning

May 5th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^

More arrogant, self entitled, SEC fans to tell us how much faster,  superior, smarter, tougher, better, and faster they are in a better conference that is the best conference in the world...

Did I mentions faster and superior?

Wow... all this to look forward to.

jb5O4

May 5th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^

I don't see expansion happening if the ESPN contract is a locked deal then diluting the payouts to extra schools doesnt seem logical. Maybe the SEC shouldn't have sold out to ESPN.

Seth9

May 5th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^

Even if the contract is a locked deal, expansion still could be valuable to the SEC for the following reasons:

1. They could make a contract with either Fox (the national network or the FSN system) or Versus in order to negate the effect of diluting the payouts during the length of the contract. Also, Turner Broadcasting is another possible network to make a deal with as they seem to be interested in expanding their sports coverage as demonstrated by their taking part of the MLB postseason and part of the NCAA tournament.

2. They could still conceivably create their own network if they add enough good teams that the network would have good games to broadcast (assuming that making such a move doesn't violate their contract with ESPN).

3. The state of flux being brought about by potential Big Ten and Pac 10 expansion may well not exist when the SEC's current contract expires. If the SEC wants to improve their league, now is likely the best time to do so, when it appears that Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and various other big names are potential targets. If the SEC doesn't act now, some or all of these teams may go elsewhere and find a way to make enough money that the SEC doesn't appear as appealing as before.

4. Big Ten and Pac 10 expansion without SEC expansion would allow the Big Ten and Pac 10 to potentially take up a greater share of the national market, which in turn may infringe on the SEC's market share. While this would not be a problem now, it would put the SEC at a disadvantage when their contract with ESPN expires. As such, the SEC may think that it is necessary to be proactive now in order to secure their long term future.

FL_Steve

May 5th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^

Only reason the SEC gets the reputation as the best conference is that they always have favorable bowl selection. The Big Ten clearly is the most watched due to National TV marketing and revenues, which most of the time place teams from the Big ten against stronger opponents to gain added revenue and fill the staduim, e.g. Illinois in the rose bowl 2008. The SEC is overrated and full of thugs, expanding their conference I feel will only dilute the stregth of the conference, who is really going to join that is a top power? come on!

the_white_tiger

May 5th, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^

The thing about the SEC is that they aren't even that great. Usually they have two elite NC-caliber teams, but the rest of the conference is either decent or pretty mediocre. The whole self-interest thing with ESPN televising their games and hyping them up and citing the few good teams just perpetuates the feeling of superiority in a traditionally inferior part of the country. They just thinks they's good because that's what it said on the ESPN.