- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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

why
Posted on 6/10/10 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 6/10/10 at 4:50 pm
Why should the SEC add teams?
Why shouldn't the SEC add teams?
What is the driving factor behind all of this? Why is more better. Does the SEC risk actually becoming two seperate conf. in foot ball if we add more?
The way my uninformed arse sees this is that we already have too many teams because we can't play all the teams that we have already.
Enlighten me.
Why shouldn't the SEC add teams?
What is the driving factor behind all of this? Why is more better. Does the SEC risk actually becoming two seperate conf. in foot ball if we add more?
The way my uninformed arse sees this is that we already have too many teams because we can't play all the teams that we have already.
Enlighten me.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 5:11 pm to CNB
Yes but elaborate! Why does all of a sudden over the last few years money all of a sudden demand we expand where we have never had as many schools in the sec as we may have soon. Hell if more is better why not make a 64 school conference? At what point is another couple to many? Why is the magic number THE MAGIC NUMBER?
Posted on 6/10/10 at 8:51 pm to omegaman66
Anyone have an answer or is this just change for the sake of change? I don't see the benefit. Convince me I am wrong.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 8:57 pm to omegaman66
Jezzus, where the frick have all you people been? Living under a rock? Seriously.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 8:58 pm to omegaman66
Because the schools in a conference divide revenue and that determines competitive balance, and the SEC can't allow the Big Ten and Pac however many conferences to leave them in the dust in terms of tv revenue.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 9:07 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Why should the SEC add teams?
As someone else said.... $$$$$$$$$$$
Posted on 6/10/10 at 9:07 pm to omegaman66
why do you have to ask so many questions?
Posted on 6/10/10 at 10:06 pm to Pedro
I don't understand! Why would we want dollar signs? Money I can understand but why dollar signs?
Well if more is better why don't we add 6 new teams. If 6 more teams is stupid why is 6 stupid and 2 not stupid.
Dickheads keep saying its is a stupid question but are not offering an answer. Maybe it is because they don't know. hmmmm...
Well if more is better why don't we add 6 new teams. If 6 more teams is stupid why is 6 stupid and 2 not stupid.
Dickheads keep saying its is a stupid question but are not offering an answer. Maybe it is because they don't know. hmmmm...
Posted on 6/10/10 at 10:09 pm to omegaman66
Larger television markets will lead to more money.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 10:44 pm to Tiger Authority
Thank you tiger authority.
But is that really significant. I mean I am a tiger fan so I don't always watch the other SEC teams. And how can I watch more than one game at a time anyway. Will LSU really benefit that much when the game gets a few more veiwers. I mean most diehard fans are watching from first game to last anyway.
Bowl money gets divided up so that actually seems like a negative. For example if we expanded to include every team then the number of bowls stays the same so percentage wise we would end up with a smaller cut.
Then you have to figure on average a 12 team conf. the average team wins 1 of 12. in a 14 team conf. the average team wins 1 of 14 so that is a negative.
Not saying I am right about this, as I am sure I am probably not. But wanting someone to explain it to me so I can be as enlightened as everyone else.
But is that really significant. I mean I am a tiger fan so I don't always watch the other SEC teams. And how can I watch more than one game at a time anyway. Will LSU really benefit that much when the game gets a few more veiwers. I mean most diehard fans are watching from first game to last anyway.
Bowl money gets divided up so that actually seems like a negative. For example if we expanded to include every team then the number of bowls stays the same so percentage wise we would end up with a smaller cut.
Then you have to figure on average a 12 team conf. the average team wins 1 of 12. in a 14 team conf. the average team wins 1 of 14 so that is a negative.
Not saying I am right about this, as I am sure I am probably not. But wanting someone to explain it to me so I can be as enlightened as everyone else.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 10:54 pm to omegaman66
The main answer is that it is assumed that to keep our superiority that we need to get bigger to keep up with other growing conferences. We want remain the best. If others grow and add more than 12 the SEC feels it would be in danger of losing its supremacy. It's about money, BCS bowl bids, winning, non BCS bowls, NCAA basketball tourney...etc.
This post was edited on 6/10/10 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 6/11/10 at 12:12 am to omegaman66
quote:
Will LSU really benefit that much when the game gets a few more veiwers. I mean most diehard fans are watching from first game to last anyway.
I think you've missed the point. Expanding and adding TV markets allows the conference to negotiate with networks (ESPN, ABC, CBS, Fox, Big 10 Network, etc.). As the geography of a conference grows, so does the number of potential viewers. An expanded conference can use this to increase the dollars in the TV deals, and, thus provide greater revenue to its members. This is the reason Texas is coveted by the Big 10, Pac 10 and even the SEC. They are very competitive in all sports and have the huge state of Texas as potential viewers. Huge dollars behind that market.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 12:19 am to graychef
Thanks for the good answers. Appreciate it.
Popular
Back to top

4








