Mike Slive's dream for the SEC

#26
#26
hatvol96 said:
Yeah, I'm petrified that the dominant league in college athletics will perish because Washington State and Oklahoma State are now in the same league. Their clashes will certainly drive Florida-Alabama off television.
Click to expand...

Funny that you pick out OSU and Washington State, two of the teams that no one gives a damn about. You must be forgetting about Texas and Oklahoma.

You should be smart enough to realize this is about TV revenues, markets, bargaining power, and general perception. Currently, the SEC is the sexy conference because it has been dominant, that can't be disputed. However, we live in an ever changing world and if one does not adapt to the times, they become second place, then eventually fade into mediocrity.
 
#27
#27
Godfatha said:
Funny that you pick out OSU and Washington State, two of the teams that no one gives a damn about. You must be forgetting about Texas and Oklahoma.

You should be smart enough to realize this is about TV revenues, markets, bargaining power, and general perception. Currently, the SEC is the sexy conference because it has been dominant, that can't be disputed. However, we live in an ever changing world and if one does not adapt to the times, they become second place, then eventually fade into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
The SEC is doing just fine without Texas and Oklahoma. They'll continue to do so.
 
#28
#28
Godfatha said:
Funny that you pick out OSU and Washington State, two of the teams that no one gives a damn about. You must be forgetting about Texas and Oklahoma.

You should be smart enough to realize this is about TV revenues, markets, bargaining power, and general perception. Currently, the SEC is the sexy conference because it has been dominant, that can't be disputed. However, we live in an ever changing world and if one does not adapt to the times, they become second place, then eventually fade into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, adding a bunch of B listers to the premiere organization is a great idea. That's a strategy that Eric Bischoff implemented. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Virginia Tech(Scott Norton) and Texas A&M(Horace Hogan). Brand dilution rules.
 
#29
#29
TEX_VOLFAN said:
whats your take hat? Pro or con for the expanding the SEC?
Click to expand...
Oklahoma and Texas are the only two schools the SEC should even entertain adding. If they aren't interested, then laugh anyone else who inquires about memebership out of the league offices.
 
#30
#30
hatvol96 said:
Yeah, I'm petrified that the dominant league in college athletics will perish because Washington State and Oklahoma State are now in the same league. Their clashes will certainly drive Florida-Alabama off television.
Click to expand...

So if a 16 team pac 10 or big ten locked up 2 automatic BCS bids you wouldn't have a problem with that?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
pantone151 said:
So if a 16 team pac 10 or big ten locked up 2 automatic BCS bids you wouldn't have a problem with that?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Why would I? One of them will just be picking up the big left out there by the Big 12. The only group that scenario should piss off is the Mountain West.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
hatvol96 said:
Yeah, adding a bunch of B listers to the premiere organization is a great idea. That's a strategy that Eric Bischoff implemented. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Virginia Tech(Scott Norton) and Texas A&M(Horace Hogan). Brand dilution rules.
Click to expand...

I could give a rat's arse about VT joining the conference. They add a good to average football team, and nothing else. No market. No large fanbase.

Texas A&M, I differ with you however. They have been good. They have the potential to be very good. They've got history, and name recognition, and market. They've been plagued with a string of lackluster coaches and they have been living in Texas' shadow a long time. A move to the SEC may could rejuvenate that program.
 
#33
#33
I cannot understand the logic for wanting Duke, UNC, NCSt, UVA, or any ACC school with the possible exception of FL St or Miami. I only add these two with the thought they get back to their former level.

I realize it is to ramp up the SEC BB prowess, but these schools are bottem half football programs-this just doesn't balance out.
 
#34
#34
Duke and UNC? really, you can't see the logic? Basketball. Tennessee playing those teams twice a year. really?

I know it won't happen but, really...no logic to it?
 
#35
#35
vol66 said:
Duke and UNC? really, you can't see the logic? Basketball. Tennessee playing those teams twice a year. really?

I know it won't happen but, really...no logic to it?
Click to expand...

Read my post a little slower, I stated I see why. I don't understand why this makes it worthy of consideration. Texas brings an upgrade in both sports.
 
#36
#36
rbroyles said:
Read my post a little slower, I stated I see why. I don't understand why this makes it worthy of consideration. Texas brings an upgrade in both sports.
Click to expand...

Texas wants nothing to do with the SEC and that is that. When the Big 12 formed, it was in large part to conquer the SEC in football. Yeah if we could get Texas and OU great, the rest of the football options aren't great, let's see if we can get basketball on par with our football.
 
#37
#37
hatvol96 said:
Oklahoma and Texas are the only two schools the SEC should even entertain adding. If they aren't interested, then laugh anyone else who inquires about memebership out of the league offices.
Click to expand...

This. The Pac-16 isn't going to hurt the SEC.
 
#38
#38
Big 12 schools moving to the Pac 10 is lateral. They won't make that much more money. The SEC will still be the best conference. Heck, look at the SEC vs everyone else combined in the BCS game.
 
#39
#39
vol66 said:
Texas wants nothing to do with the SEC and that is that. When the Big 12 formed, it was in large part to conquer the SEC in football. Yeah if we could get Texas and OU great, the rest of the football options aren't great, let's see if we can get basketball on par with our football.
Click to expand...

If by our you mean Tennessee, why bring our BB team down?
 
#40
#40
golfballs03 said:
Big 12 schools moving to the Pac 10 is lateral. They won't make that much more money. The SEC will still be the best conference. Heck, look at the SEC vs everyone else combined in the BCS game.
Click to expand...

Agreed...Had they all moved to the Big Televen, I'd be a little worried. Texas didn't want that either, too much competition.
 
#43
#43
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I am thinking for the basketball

I am sure they are cash cows
Click to expand...

I am fully on the UNC & Duke package deal bandwagon. We don't need more football powerhouses, just new markets. Those two teams would completely cover NC and bring excellent basketball programs. Not to mention we would neuter the ACC by taking two flagship universities.
 
#44
#44
I can live with the "make them beg" approach. Hell, there isn't any reason to look needy. Fan support for the SEC isn't going to dwindle just because the PAC 10 adds schools. The SEC has worked hard to become the top league in the country. Might as well act like it.
 
#45
#45
Hell, half the sec isn't even worthy of being in the conference by some of your guys standards. Why even think about adding other teams?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#46
#46
Lexvol said:
I can live with the "make them beg" approach. Hell, there isn't any reason to look needy. Fan support for the SEC isn't going to dwindle just because the PAC 10 adds schools. The SEC has worked hard to become the top league in the country. Might as well act like it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. To carry my earlier analogy a little further, Brett Hart and Sting were huge stars. However, their additions didn't help the nWo brand one bid. The only guys who could have made them better then were Austin(Texas) or the Rock(OU).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
hatvol96 said:
Exactly. To carry my earlier analogy a little further, Brett Hart and Sting were huge stars. However, their additions didn't help the nWo brand one bid. The only guys who could have made them better then were Austin(Texas) or the Rock(OU).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Stone cold has way more titles than than uta.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
hatvol96 said:
Exactly. To carry my earlier analogy a little further, Brett Hart and Sting were huge stars. However, their additions didn't help the nWo brand one bid. The only guys who could have made them better then were Austin(Texas) or the Rock(OU).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Just say no to Canadians and face painters with mullets.
 
#49
#49
milohimself said:
Stone cold has way more titles than than uta.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I hope Stone Cold doesn't see my post. Through his friendship with Jim Ross, he's become a big OU supporter. Being associated with the puke orange might provoke him to open a can on me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top