SEC Presidents have Blocked A&M from coming to the SEC

#26
#26
gordonr24 said:
Believe it takes 4 schools to reject. Someone correct me if I'm wrong
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I could see 4 schools that already struggle in the conference putting the block on. Why would kentucky,vandy,miss state,and south carolina want more competition in a conference they have historically struggled in. Aside from money that is, I guess if the price is right they will all bite.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
it's kind of doubtful to get 4 votes along those lines

if "we're already struggling enough" carried that much weight for those schools, arky (& i guess USCe) wouldn't have gotten voted in
 
#28
#28
TrueOrange said:
it's kind of doubtful to get 4 votes along those lines

if "we're already struggling enough" carried that much weight for those schools, arky (& i guess USCe) wouldn't have gotten voted in
Click to expand...

I here ya there, but the level of competition difference between a&m,fsu,clemson,and mizzou as compared to arky and USCe is quite substantial.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
AlexHay13 said:
I could see 4 schools that already struggle in the conference putting the block on. Why would kentucky,vandy,miss state,and south carolina want more competition in a conference they have historically struggled in. Aside from money that is, I guess if the price is right they will all bite.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Add Arky and LSU due to location.
 
#31
#31
I do not like this one bit. We are the SEC, the best conference in college football. WHY should we open the door for others? I personally think Mike Slive needs to go, he is killing us with scholarship limits, now he wants to add to a perfect situation.

Texas A&M?? If i would be for any other teams coming in, it would be Ga Tech and maybe UNC. They are southern schools, Texas A&M and Missouri are not. Florida State had their chance years ago and they did not want to play ball every week.
Leave the SEC alone Mike Slive!
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
Aggiemag said on twitter that "the train has left the station. Headed east!"

Don't know how reliable it is though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#35
#35
gordonr24 said:
Aggiemag said on twitter that "the train has left the station. Headed east!"

Don't know how reliable it is though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I sure hope this is wrong. It's not like they'll just add one, and adding more teams to get more money will come with a tradeoff. In order to accomodate the new teams, some of the East/West division rivalries will almost certainly have to discontinue their current yearly existence. The thought that there is a very real chance we won't have Alabama on our 2012 schedule makes me sick. I know they've owned us lately, but that's still the game I look forward to more than any other each fall.
 
#36
#36
bleedorange0037 said:
I sure hope this is wrong. It's not like they'll just add one, and adding more teams to get more money will come with a tradeoff. In order to accomodate the new teams, some of the East/West division rivalries will almost certainly have to discontinue their current yearly existence. The thought that there is a very real chance we won't have Alabama on our 2012 schedule makes me sick. I know they've owned us lately, but that's still the game I look forward to more than any other each fall.
Click to expand...
+1 i would rather drop UF than Bama.
 
#37
#37
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
+1 i would rather drop UF than Bama.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, given the geography of the region, that's not how it will work. UGA/Auburn will likely lose their yearly meeting too. I guess the schools would rather take advantage of this money grab than preserve two of the greatest rivalries in college football.
 
#38
#38
bleedorange0037 said:
I sure hope this is wrong. It's not like they'll just add one, and adding more teams to get more money will come with a tradeoff. In order to accomodate the new teams, some of the East/West division rivalries will almost certainly have to discontinue their current yearly existence. The thought that there is a very real chance we won't have Alabama on our 2012 schedule makes me sick. I know they've owned us lately, but that's still the game I look forward to more than any other each fall.
Click to expand...

Why would they have to drop it? If another team is added in the west, which is possible, Bama and Auburn would likely move east. No loss of anything. Even adding A&M doesn't instantly mean the loss of that cross-division game. It's been preserved for this long, so I doubt it is going to be thrown away.
 
#39
#39
rockytop9808 said:
Why would they have to drop it? If another team is added in the west, which is possible, Bama and Auburn would likely move east. No loss of anything. Even adding A&M doesn't instantly mean the loss of that cross-division game. It's been preserved for this long, so I doubt it is going to be thrown away.
Click to expand...

yeah but people like to be pessimistic and worried about changes
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
rockytop9808 said:
Why would they have to drop it? If another team is added in the west, which is possible, Bama and Auburn would likely move east. No loss of anything. Even adding A&M doesn't instantly mean the loss of that cross-division game. It's been preserved for this long, so I doubt it is going to be thrown away.
Click to expand...

Simple math dictates it if the conference expands to 16, which most people seem to think is the end game here. That leaves us with 7 games against our divisional opponents and only 1 game against the west. There is 0% chance that the SEC will set the schedule up such that we would play Bama every year and NEVER play Auburn, MSU, Ole Miss, Arky, LSU, ATM and Mizzou. They'll have to rotate western opponents, which means we'll only see Bama twice every 16 years. I don't care how much more money this brings in for the school, it's not worth reducing the UT/Bama rivalry to an affair that happens barely more than once a decade.
 
#41
#41
bleedorange0037 said:
Simple math dictates it if the conference expands to 16, which most people seem to think is the end game here. That leaves us with 7 games against our divisional opponents and only 1 game against the west. There is 0% chance that the SEC will set the schedule up such that we would play Bama every year and NEVER play Auburn, MSU, Ole Miss, Arky, LSU, ATM and Mizzou. They'll have to rotate western opponents, which means we'll only see Bama twice every 16 years. I don't care how much more money this brings in for the school, it's not worth reducing the UT/Bama rivalry to an affair that happens barely more than once a decade.
Click to expand...

or increase the conference games. they're not so bad at math that they're going to think staying at 8 - a system designed for 12 teams - with MORE teams is a good idea
 
#42
#42
bleedorange0037 said:
Simple math dictates it if the conference expands to 16, which most people seem to think is the end game here. That leaves us with 7 games against our divisional opponents and only 1 game against the west. There is 0% chance that the SEC will set the schedule up such that we would play Bama every year and NEVER play Auburn, MSU, Ole Miss, Arky, LSU, ATM and Mizzou. They'll have to rotate western opponents, which means we'll only see Bama twice every 16 years. I don't care how much more money this brings in for the school, it's not worth reducing the UT/Bama rivalry to an affair that happens barely more than once a decade.
Click to expand...

Two things:

1. Why on earth do you think the number of conference games would not increase?
and
2. What makes you think there will only be two divisions should there be a 16 team conference?
 
#43
#43
TrueOrange said:
or increase the conference games. they're not so bad at math that they're going to think staying at 8 - a system designed for 12 teams - with MORE teams is a good idea
Click to expand...

Adding an additional conference game isn't as easy as just doing it. Having an uneven number of conference games means that some teams will have a competitive advantage over others due the the fact that half the teams will have 5 conference home games and some will only have 4. I guess the way I see it is that we have a system that works almost perfectly. We've produced 5 consecutive NC's in football, so why go trying to fix something that isn't broke for the sake of essentially letting ATM, a team who is butthurt over Texas being more important than they are, be a charity case? They stand to gain a lot more from this deal than any of the actual SEC schools who currently make up the conference.
 
#44
#44
bleedorange0037 said:
Adding an additional conference game isn't as easy as just doing it. Having an uneven number of conference games means that some teams will have a competitive advantage over others due the the fact that half the teams will have 5 conference home games and some will only have 4. I guess the way I see it is that we have a system that works almost perfectly. We've produced 5 consecutive NC's in football, so why go trying to fix something that isn't broke for the sake of essentially letting ATM, a team who is butthurt over Texas being more important than they are, be a charity case? They stand to gain a lot more from this deal than any of the actual SEC schools who currently make up the conference.
Click to expand...

The Pac-10 did it just fine for years. Besides, if it's alternating every season, there is zero injustice. This is a fabricated issue.
 
#45
#45
rockytop9808 said:
Two things:

1. Why on earth do you think the number of conference games would not increase?
and
2. What makes you think there will only be two divisions should there be a 16 team conference?
Click to expand...

See my previous post for the answer to #1.

As for #2 the problem remains. It's no easier with 4 divisions from a schedule perspective. If you think it's so easy, go ahead and post a framework for how a 4 division schedule would work. You would obviously have the 3 games against your own division, but then you have to fill out 5 games from 3 divisions. Like I said, it's not as simple as you make it sound.
 
#46
#46
bleedorange0037 said:
See my previous post for the answer to #1.

As for #2 the problem remains. It's no easier with 4 divisions from a schedule perspective. If you think it's so easy, go ahead and post a framework for how a 4 division schedule would work. You would obviously have the 3 games against your own division, but then you have to fill out 5 games from 3 divisions. Like I said, it's not as simple as you make it sound.
Click to expand...

...which is why you play 9 conference games. You can preserve one or two non-division rivalries and rotate the other two to three games. It's not that difficult, and your response to reason one is weak at best.
 
#47
#47
rockytop9808 said:
The Pac-10 did it just fine for years. Besides, if it's alternating every season, there is zero injustice. This is a fabricated issue.
Click to expand...

Just because the Pac-10 did it with 9 games or the SEC used to do it with 7 games doesn't make it a fair system. It's just as fair as you can be given limited options.

You do realize also that the addition of an extra conference game drastically hurts the SEC's chances of producing a NC. It's tough enough to get through 8 games without losing, and with each game you add those odds just get longer and longer.
 
#48
#48
bleedorange0037 said:
Just because the Pac-10 did it with 9 games or the SEC used to do it with 7 games doesn't make it a fair system. It's just as fair as you can be given limited options.

You do realize also that the addition of an extra conference game drastically hurts the SEC's chances of producing a NC. It's tough enough to get through 8 games without losing, and with each game you add those odds just get longer and longer.
Click to expand...

Did anyone complain about it being drastically unfair before? Like I said, every team is going to have an even number of unbalanced seasons. Zero unfairness.

I would imagine a one-loss SEC school would make the title game just as easily as most undefeated teams in other conferences. I don't see that as being as big of an issue.

Some teams are always going to draw the "easier" teams from other divisions, and some aren't. Look at our SEC West draw this year compared to Georgia's. It's all fluid, and not a big deal in the end. It won't end up costing a team a chance at the title if they drop one conference game but win the SEC championship.
 
#49
#49
rockytop9808 said:
Did anyone complain about it being drastically unfair before? Like I said, every team is going to have an even number of unbalanced seasons. Zero unfairness.

I would imagine a one-loss SEC school would make the title game just as easily as most undefeated teams in other conferences. I don't see that as being as big of an issue.

Some teams are always going to draw the "easier" teams from other divisions, and some aren't. Look at our SEC West draw this year compared to Georgia's. It's all fluid, and not a big deal in the end. It won't end up costing a team a chance at the title if they drop one conference game but win the SEC championship.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I just don't see the real benefit in messing up a good thing for a charity case school that is barely within 400 miles of it's closest SEC neighbor.
 
#50
#50
bleedorange0037 said:
Like I said, I just don't see the real benefit in messing up a good thing for a charity case school that is barely within 400 miles of it's closest SEC neighbor.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point entirely. If you think the whole reason for this expansion is because the SEC views A&M as a charity case, you're off your rocker.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top