BewareThePhog
1st String
Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location: |
RE: The Big 12 will blow up soon. (My Prediction)
(10-10-2013 05:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: (10-10-2013 11:44 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote: (10-10-2013 08:26 AM)10thMountain Wrote: Sounds great to outsiders but I don't see the SEC West teams voting to turn the division into that unwinnable meat grinder.
UT and OU won't be in the SEC.
I have to agree with this. If you're just a fan of the conference, adding OU and UT sounds great. But ultimately a conference is made up of individual members, and they have to keep their interests in mind.
The addition of aTm to get the SEC into Texas was a no-brainer, even if it meant that there was a potential sleeping giant joining that could regularly challenge the upper-mid-tier of the league as well as the top. There was simply too much to gain with that addition to pass it up. Adding Missouri was also a good move, because they're a very good school, they bring new contiguous markets, and they have historically good-but-not-great programs. They particularly had the chance to enhance the SEC's basketball brand.
If you accept the premise that the SEC can only enhance a school's brand, adding UT and OU means adding two historic powerhouses, with re-energized recruiting, fanbases, etc to the conference. I think you could perhaps get away with adding one, but likely not both of them. For any established conference, finding new schools that complement each other, and add to the league without causing too much brand erosion to the schools that are there is a challenge.
I think that's one reason why the speculation of OU and KU to the B1G has some traction, at least among message board types. OU would add to the league in football, but also adding KU means that most of the existing teams would expect to have a W on their schedule in the fall. The reverse would be true in basketball, although OU basketball has traditionally been stronger than KU football.
Phog I'm not saying that you or 10th are wrong here, but allow me to play devils advocate for a moment. Travel is going to matter even more in the future than it does now. Expenses are only going to go up. Texas and Oklahoma want more marquee games on the schedule. They both want to be able to play rivals of a local flavor. You do realize that the Western division of the SEC would consist of the following with Oklahoma and Texas on board: Arkansas (old SWC rival), L.S.U. (a natural rival for both) Ole Miss (a reasonably close school and one that isn't dynamite), Miss State (see Ole Miss), Missouri (recent conference mate and usually middle of the pack), Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M (rival).
What I'm illustrating here is that Texas and Oklahoma would be playing in a division with Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and L.S.U.. That's plenty of good names to put fannies in the seats in Austin and Norman. It's also exactly the kinds of teams they want to play for local flavor and interest.
If the SEC found a way to make a spot for Okie State it would be very close to being the best of the old SWC/Big 12 all in one 8 team division.
Texas and Oklahoma would not be playing anymore of a difficult schedule to win the division than they played in the old Big 12. And, the games would be confined to an area more compact than the old Big 12.
That's as good as it gets for them at this stage in the realignment game. Add to that the content value that would float all boats, their's included, and whether you are a proponent of the PAC or Big 10 you have to admit that the scenario presented would have to be appealing even for Texas.
Sure the SEC is not as appealing academically as the PAC or Big 10, but then the present Big 12 is worse than the SEC academically speaking. It wouldn't be much of an upgrade to go to the SEC but at least it would be an upgrade. There is nowhere else they can go that can guarantee as many local games for their division as the SEC.
So all of this speculation that says the PAC, and the Big 10, needs to address the travel and the old relationships that would be important to OU and UT. The ACC is still very much in the picture given the right set of circumstances. Especially since ESPN is not going to want to lose Texas and the corporate mouse can benefit by placing them in either the SEC or ACC.
Like I said, I'm not saying Texas wouldn't or couldn't go to the PAC or Big 10, I'm just pointing out that there is no conference that is out of the hunt on this one and some that have some natural advantages, and some with business advantages.
Personally I don't care to see Texas in the SEC, but if they were added the business end of it would make a great deal of sense.
JR, you're always thoughtful and respectful, so I never mind when you post alternate opinions. Civilized discourse is what makes it worth coming to this board.
I agree with your take on why it could be attractive for OU and UT to join the SEC. I am just skeptical on whether some of those other teams that would be part of that Western Division would be as keen to have them both on board. LSU's a big-time brand, but OU and UT outshine the likes of Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. aTm is a great school which has had success, but I think that overall UT has been a stronger brand, so aTm's current recruiting pitch is the advantage of being an SEC member.
I could perhaps foresee a scenario where one of those schools joined the SEC, but it seems unlikely to me that they'd have both. I don't think that KU is a cultural fit, but I'd see current schools being more amenable to say a combination of OU and KU (as has been posited for the B1G) since the addition of one football powerhouse would be balanced by the addition of a school that mostly struggles in football but which brings something else to the table. Adding just one powerhouse would enhance the overall SEC brand without putting current schools further in jeopardy of sliding down the ranks in football.
(This post was last modified: 10-11-2013 11:13 AM by JRsec.)
|
|
/
Big 12 Mega-thread. (Doomsday theories and Luck/UCF rumors)
