Why is more better?

If the SEC can get a large piece of the Texas market, it is very good for the conference. This isn't just a case of "bigger is better". There is a lot of value add in this move.

quote:

---

i honestly don't think there is anything at all broken with the current SEC arrangement.

---

I don't either, and I still dont think that 2 other 16-team superconferences really threatens the SEC, and to that, the SEC should "keep-up"

but....


I couldn't stand idly by while an opportunity to add an A&M presents itself and do nothing. There really arent a ton of schools that are a great fit for the conference, much less a chance to get one. The SEC has to at least give it a shot, it may be 50 more years before this window opens again

quote:

---

Why is more better?

---

I don't necessarily agree that it is. However, no one asked me whether I was okay with the moves that have happened and those being considered.

But one of my buddies had an interesting take on why the SEC and other BCS conferences might want to add teams in light of the proposed Pac 10+ excpansion. If the Pac 10+ gets to 16, could they possibly ask for two automatic bids to the BCS? Someone has to get that old Big XII bid assuming there's no Big XII there to grab it. Certainly if the SEC is as big or almost as big as the Pac 10+, the argument for one conference to get multiple bids would be less pursuasive.

I don't think SEC expansion is better but if the Pac 10 is truly going to 16 and Big 10 goes to 14, the SEC should as well as long as the SEC TV deal can be kept at the same payout per school or better. That's the gamble in all this conference expansion for the SEC.