The Rest of College Football

[Mike]

As if they didn't have enough hillbillies in the conference already... now they want WVU. They can have a rivalry game with Mississippi called the Moonshine Bowl.

[WM Wolverine]

SEC is preferring an 'east' team to balance the conference with team #14 and WON'T add any school in its footprint like FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT... WVU looking more likely than Missouri who might could begging the B10 for membership. No ACC school is interested with VT boldly saying they aren't interested...

-

Not sure what type of grade I'd give the SEC past couple expansions of SC, Arkansas, A&M & possibly WVU. Certainly not as successful as the ACC's raid of the Big East, when they added Miami, Virginia Tech & Boston College plus added FSU (who chose to dominate the ACC as opposed to compete in the SEC; Bowden came out and said as much)...

I thought A&M was ready to finally play up to their ability (after underachieving for much of the past decade plus) in the Big 12 and I really like their talent for this year. In the SEC the road will be much more difficult. Does the state of Texas open itself up for SEC recruits? Its very possible Texas still gets pretty much whoever they want but the 2nd tier recruits start looking at SEC schools instead of A&M, Big 12 and other schools...

Arkansas was thought to be a big addition at the time but they haven't added a whole lot. South Carolina did deliver their state though its debatable whether they are the top football team in their state...

West Virginia has dominated the Big East since those ACC schools left, I think the level of competition in the SEC is a couple levels higher; their players are much bigger...

SEC fans bring up how passionate their fans are for their schools, imo they are very lucky to not have near as many NFL franchises as B10 country who have the Vikings, Packers, Lions, Bears, Eagles, Browns, Bengals, Steelers & Colts in their footprint. The NFL franchises in SEC country are largely young franchises that lack the rapid following of those in the B10.

[iam416]

The SEC will add either Mizzou or WVU.

I think their expansion, while not adding huge name teams, has been very successful. What they've added is 2 programs (Ark, SC) with really good fanbases who fill up 80,000 seat stadiums. And while I think they probably have 3 CG appearances between them, they've been outstanding "filler" material. What the SEC has done with expansion is (a) add a CG way before anyone else and (b) provide a mid-tier base that could prop up the "six" powers. The end result has been a growth in the SEC brand and quality of football over the past 20 years that really can't be denied. Expansion, IMO, made that happen.

I think aTm is a good fit for the SEC. Missouri and WVU, eh, not so much. And at this stage, they can't really improve their brand with anything other than superstar additions (Texas, VT, FSU). So, I see this round of expansion as a small positive in that they're adding a huge market, but I think it's more defensive than anything. That is to say, Slive may feel that 16 is where things will settle and that aTm is as good an option as they have, even if they don't add a ton of value.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Adding Missouri would kind of screw up the divisions. Somebody currently in the west would have to go east or move Vandy to the west and both Alabama schools east.

[Hannibal]

This is not good for college football at all. No Texas vs Texas A&M game anymore? An SEC West with LSU, Tx A&M, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vandy, Arkansas, and Missouri? No potential big rivalries in that other than maybe LSU-TxA&M, which would pale in comparison to Texas-Texas A&M. The SEC will be horribly unbalanced that way. And this looks like just the beginning. The sport could be on the cusp of losing the Okalahoma-Texas rivalry too. If the Big Ten expands to 16 and goes to pods, one of Michigan's major rivalries will almost certainly go down the tubes too.

[iam416]

Yeah, Strangelove, I agree. I don't think you can possibly move the Alabama schools. The East would be hellaciously good.

The other option is to add aTm to the West and whoever else, regardless of location, to the East. And then, if they go to 16, reshuffle if they can.

Hanni:

Not that I disagree, but why do you say that? My mind isn't made up. But, I can see some value in four 16-team conferences. You, in effect, have eight 8-team divisions and a built in playoff. At the same time, non-conference games become more expendable -- you can lose and still remain in the hunt. Of course, that has an obvious negative to it. And there's an obvious negative if, e.g., OSU and M aren't in the same division.

Just curious to hear your take.

[Hannibal]

To me, designing all of the conferences around just having a neat playoff is the ultimate tail-wagging-the-dog mentality. Quite frankly, I think that college football was near perfect the way that it was five years ago. I'm perfectly fine with the sport not having a playoff, and even if we wanted one, we don't need superconferences to do it. And I don't think that people have any clue how important the regional identity of conferences is for college football or the importance of the rivalries that are in jeopardy. Superconferences will have identities similar to the conferences in professional sports. In other words -- none. The Big Ten was on the verge of throwing the Michigan-OSU rivalry under the bus last year and it looks like Texas and Oklahoma are perfectly willing to throw their rivalry under the bus. It's total insanity, if you ask me. Each one of these expansions is accompanied by speculation about how great a new rivalry can be (e.g. Nebraska vs Iowa). But why bother?

And then there's the issue of there being only four conference winners instead of 6 or 7. 16 teams in a conference. This means that you could have a really good program and still not win a conference championship for 20 years.

Other than providing a selection committee a slightly easier way to select teams for a post-season tournament, I think this does absolutely nothing for the game. Destroying the regional packets that have made college football what it is for 100 years is a really bad idea, and I think that the economic reasons are highly questionable.

[Jamie H]

.I'm perfectly fine with the sport not having a playoff

You are increasingly alone in that belief. Personally I think the lack of a playoff in college football is tantamount to insanity. College football is still great despite the ridiculous lack of a playoff, not because of the lack of playoff.

[Hannibal]

I might be increasingly alone in that belief, but regardless -- you could have a playoff with what we've got now and it wouldn't be less enjoyable than a playoff that comes from 4 16-team superconferences. And please allow me to point out -- these moves are not being made with a playoff in mind. They are done for other reasons, some of which I think are highly questionable.

[iam416]

Hanni:

Fair points regarding regional value. What I could see happening, though, is the almost a retrenchment a higher value on regional teams. In effect, there will be 8 divisions. If those 8 teams are actually, well, geographically clustered, the regional identity of those divisions may increase. It's not just the SEC, but the SEC West that is so dominant or, heh heh, the P10 North. And in that regard, division titles will become almost as important as conference titles are today. And if they playoff is limited to conference champs, then could have West, Midwest, South and East Coast representatives.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the "if ain't broke don't fix it" argument. But I'm still not sure that "superconferences" will be a net negative.

[Dr. Strangelove]

This is not good for college football at all. No Texas vs Texas A&M game anymore? An SEC West with LSU, Tx A&M, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vandy, Arkansas, and Missouri? No potential big rivalries in that other than maybe LSU-TxA&M, which would pale in comparison to Texas-Texas A&M. The SEC will be horribly unbalanced that way. And this looks like just the beginning. The sport could be on the cusp of losing the Okalahoma-Texas rivalry too. If the Big Ten expands to 16 and goes to pods, one of Michigan's major rivalries will almost certainly go down the tubes too.

If Texas-Texas A&m and Texas-Oklahoma go away, you can only blame Texas for forcing that to happen.

I had forgotten about the pod system, which I think could work well, but you need 16 teams for that

[iam416]

What's really interesting about the P10 stuff -- well, at least to me b/c I didn't appreciate it -- is that they can't really go to 14. It seems to me they have to go to 16 or nothing. If the Oklahomas are added in, you ruin the "travel partner" alignment and either have to split USC/UCLA or Colorado/Utah. And I can't imagine the P10 taking on 16 if UT isn't on board. I can't see, e.g., OU/OkSt/TT/someone other than Texas. So even now, UT may hold some real power.

I also think the SEC is leaning toward WV. Missouri will be utterly and totally hosed.

As for the B10, I still think they only expand if ND is on board. They'll find a 14th team if ND is interested, but otherwise, no. That may be Missouri's best hope, and it's not a good one. Then again, maybe Slive plays off Missouri's desperation and brings them into the SEC on hugely favorable terms for everyone else.

[Dr. Strangelove]

What's really interesting about the P10 stuff -- well, at least to me b/c I didn't appreciate it -- is that they can't really go to 14. It seems to me they have to go to 16 or nothing. If the Oklahomas are added in, you ruin the "travel partner" alignment and either have to split USC/UCLA or Colorado/Utah. And I can't imagine the P10 taking on 16 if UT isn't on board. I can't see, e.g., OU/OkSt/TT/someone other than Texas. So even now, UT may hold some real power.

I also think the SEC is leaning toward WV. Missouri will be utterly and totally hosed.

As for the B10, I still think they only expand if ND is on board. They'll find a 14th team if ND is interested, but otherwise, no. That may be Missouri's best hope, and it's not a good one. Then again, maybe Slive plays off Missouri's desperation and brings them into the SEC on hugely favorable terms for everyone else.

If I refind the link I will post it, but I saw an article with comments from the Colorado President who seemed PISSED that they could be screwed into a "Great Plains" division in the new Pac16. From their perspective they'd be regrouped with all the teams they wanted to get away from. They wanted to play on the west coast and if things go down the way they are looking, they will be separated from any Cali schools.

If we add Notre Dame I want Pitt or Maryland with them. F Missouri. That's a last resort.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also, I believe the Arizona schools will oppose a plan that separates them from playing in California as well. They HEAVILY rely on SoCal talent. So maybe the Pac16 isn't such a done deal.

[iam416]

The Colorado stuff is a bit disingenuous -- that was the deal that the P10 was working toward last summer. I understand that maybe CU thinks they dodged a bullet and now this would screw them. But, eh, whatever.

The reality is that CU would be in an league of equals if it ever did happen which is far different than the B12. And they'd still get games against the other division, presumably.