- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What is the goal of SEC expansion?
Posted on 10/19/11 at 9:54 am
Posted on 10/19/11 at 9:54 am
I've been hearing a lot about expanding markets and more revenue for the SEC.
Is that the ultimate goal?
Right now the SEC is by far the best conference, so I understand that now is a good time to cash in. however, I question the long-term goals as it pertains to individual teams.
This will make it harder to win the SEC, and thus the championship. it'll also give 4 other teams more recruiting power from a finite pool of talent.
As far as money from TV contracts, that doesn't really matter to me that much. it's all about the actual football games, to me.
Is that the ultimate goal?
Right now the SEC is by far the best conference, so I understand that now is a good time to cash in. however, I question the long-term goals as it pertains to individual teams.
This will make it harder to win the SEC, and thus the championship. it'll also give 4 other teams more recruiting power from a finite pool of talent.
As far as money from TV contracts, that doesn't really matter to me that much. it's all about the actual football games, to me.
5
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:09 am to Fissionaccomplished
we need to keep up with everyone else...the ACC is going to 14. The Big 10 could easily get to 14...the Pac-12 was about to go to 16.
Bigger geographic footprint means more eyeballs watching games, which means more TV money...more TV money means more money for schools like LSU to build new facilities, pay coaches better, etc.
Bigger geographic footprint means more eyeballs watching games, which means more TV money...more TV money means more money for schools like LSU to build new facilities, pay coaches better, etc.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:11 am to Fissionaccomplished
Adding a Texas school to the SEC is a huge gain. Texas talent is stocking the entire Big 12. Go look at Mizzou's roster. There are 35 kids from Texas on that team.
Adding Mizzou is basically about adding television money to the upcoming SEC Network, although Gary Pinkel has built a very nice program there.
Adding Mizzou is basically about adding television money to the upcoming SEC Network, although Gary Pinkel has built a very nice program there.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:11 am to Fissionaccomplished
Big Ten and Pac-12 is earning more money than SEC right now with inferior products and this isn't sitting well with Mike Slive and some of the athletic directors. Expansion allows for contract re-negotiations especially after adding a massive TX market. There have also been talks for a network similar to BTN. This is an arms race that started last year.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:13 am to Chicken
From what I have read, one of the goals is for the SEC to have its own network, similar to Big 10's.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:14 am to Fissionaccomplished
it is clearly about money, money, and more money. that and competition between the conferences and a probable fear that staying put essentially means going backwards.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:16 am to daboman of Aggieland
quote:
Adding a Texas school to the SEC is a huge gain. Texas talent is stocking the entire Big 12. Go look at Mizzou's roster. There are 35 kids from Texas on that team.
This has nothing to do with the talent in TX. It's a nice luxury to have but there is plenty of talent in the southeast. Not having a TX school never stopped UGA from getting a Matt Stafford or LSU getting a Terrance Tolliver or Russell Shepard. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:18 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
and a probable fear that staying put essentially means going backwards.
Also this. Don't want to have to sift through the scraps to find suitable additions after other conferences get their picks in.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:21 am to Fissionaccomplished
quote:
As far as money from TV contracts, that doesn't really matter to me that much. it's all about the actual football games, to me.
I completely agree. The expansion is diluting the product. It's about grudge-matches. I miss OU vs Nebraska every year. No one wants to give up a Bama or Auburn for Missouri & A&M. I get the objective, and because there's nothing else to do around here, college football will still thrive...but I suspect it really won't be as good.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:40 am to bulldogger
quote:
From what I have read, one of the goals is for the SEC to have its own network, similar to Big 10's.
Winner, winner, chicken-dinner.
Step 1:
Get a conference Network.
Step 2:
Keep playing great football.
Step 3:
Wait 25 years, then kick out ESPN / CBS / etc. and provide conference content directly to consumers via traditional media and platforms yet to come. Ie, kick out the middleman.
Step 4:
Open University banks to stash all of the $$$.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:41 am to Smoke Ring
Arkansas already has university banks. Their called Walmart, Tyson, ect.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:49 am to bulldogger
quote:
college football will still thrive...but I suspect it really won't be as good.
People said this when the SWC collapsed.
People said this when SEC was first to expand to 12 teams and introduced a conference championship game.
People said this when the BCS was implemented.
I'm not worried at all about the quality of CFB. More times than not, evolution is for the better.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 10:56 am to coldhotwings
i think the shorter-term goal of the SEC expansion was to trigger a tv contracts renegotiation 'event'....
The SEC had the best deal ever a couple of years ago, but now that doesn't look so good in the eyes of what other conferences are getting. There are "reviews" periodically between the SEC and ESPN/CBS, but I think the SEC wanted a real trigger point to re-do the contracts. This allows that to happen.
The SEC had the best deal ever a couple of years ago, but now that doesn't look so good in the eyes of what other conferences are getting. There are "reviews" periodically between the SEC and ESPN/CBS, but I think the SEC wanted a real trigger point to re-do the contracts. This allows that to happen.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:00 am to clamdip
It bothers me that Minnesota is making more money from their conference deal than LSU or Bama. The change is for the better.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:22 am to coldhotwings
The ultimate goal is to allow SEC teams to continue to compete at the absolute top level. Money helps make this happen by paying for the best facilities and coaches. Money is obtained through television deals, merchandising, ticket and concession sales, etc.
The Powers that Be think that expanding the conference is the best way to make this happen b/c it results in better tv deals and an expanded recruiting footprint. I'm not so sure b/c I worry that we are going to water down our product and lose some of the tradition that makes our fans so loyal.
The Powers that Be think that expanding the conference is the best way to make this happen b/c it results in better tv deals and an expanded recruiting footprint. I'm not so sure b/c I worry that we are going to water down our product and lose some of the tradition that makes our fans so loyal.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:32 am to GumBro Jackson
quote:
'm not so sure b/c I worry that we are going to water down our product and lose some of the tradition that makes our fans so loyal.
We aren't taking on schools that are strictly academic institutions that are located in nice tv markets. The schools we are looking at or bring in have shown they can have success on the field and have inherent potential to become strong programs.
Tradition comes and goes. As our Ole Miss rivalry has waned over the years, the artificial rivalry with Arky has built some momentum. Now we are renewing an old rivalry with TAMU. The future will be fun to watch.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:04 pm to coldhotwings
quote:
Tradition comes and goes
going...going...gone
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:13 pm to coldhotwings
quote:
We aren't taking on schools that are strictly academic institutions that are located in nice tv markets. The schools we are looking at or bring in have shown they can have success on the field and have inherent potential to become strong programs.
Tradition comes and goes. As our Ole Miss rivalry has waned over the years, the artificial rivalry with Arky has built some momentum. Now we are renewing an old rivalry with TAMU. The future will be fun to watch.
I think Texas A&M is a great addition. If we had to expand, they are probably as good as we could hope for. A lot of posters seem to think they are a little odd, but all of the SEC teams are a little odd. To me, they are a good fit on all counts: lots of tv eyeballs, passionate fans, good program, decent cultural fit, and a good academic reputation as well. When a team brings all that to the table, it is worth expanding and risking possibly losing some tradition b/c you are getting a lot in return.
I'm much more concerned with the addition of Missouri. I just don't see the value being added. Sure they have some okay markets, but do they really move the needle in those markets? As for fanbase, they are going to be like number nine in the SEC. They just don't "fit" as well. And when their addition starts to mess things up (likek our divisions), that is when I worry about product being watered down, traditions getting killed, etc, and all that comes without a the same amt of upside as the addition of A&M.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 5:26 pm to Chicken
quote:
we need to keep up with everyone else
I keep hearing this, but I've never heard a convincing explanation of why. We've had a smaller footprint (at least in terms of population) than pretty much every other AQ conference for the last 20 years, but our national appeal and TV revenues are at or near the top. I'm not convinced that the ACC's addition of two teams automatically means we need to add two. The Pac 12 and Big Ten aren't making any moves right now and seem OK with staying at 12 teams each. The Big 12 and Big East aren't going to be a threat any time soon. I just don't see the compelling need to expand simply to "keep up".
The only attempt at a "super conference" (more than 12 teams) in the past, the WAC expanding to 16 back in the '90s, was an unmitigated disaster, and it fell apart within a couple of years when the 8 original WAC teams left to form the MWC. Obviously, that was a different situation, but still, the expansion to 16 did nothing to help the WAC, even relative to the other minor conferences. Why is it automatically assumed that the major conferences have to do it?
Posted on 10/19/11 at 5:37 pm to GumBro Jackson
quote:
I'm much more concerned with the addition of Missouri. I just don't see the value being added. Sure they have some okay markets, but do they really move the needle in those markets? As for fanbase, they are going to be like number nine in the SEC. They just don't "fit" as well. And when their addition starts to mess things up (likek our divisions), that is when I worry about product being watered down, traditions getting killed, etc, and all that comes without a the same amt of upside as the addition of A&M.
You kind of have to think of Missouri as part of the package with A&M. We can't realistically stay at 13, so the "price" of taking A&M is taking another school, too. Missouri might not be that great an addition, but is there a better one available?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News