Texas A&M coming to the SEC????

#334
#334
bamawriter said:
Following military tradition > hippies sitting in trees
Click to expand...

first off that's not cal's fanbase. those people probably don't know what a first down is. second i'm more refering to the folks who wore shirts during our 06 holiday bowl match that said "we are going to beat the crap out of some hippies."
 
#335
#335
droski said:
first off that's not cal's fanbase. those people probably don't know what a first down is. second i'm more refering to the folks who wore shirts during our 06 holiday bowl match that said "we are going to beat the crap out of some hippies."
Click to expand...

You're not going to shake the label.
 
#338
#338
droski said:
i understand that, but it's not based on reality while A&Ms seems to be.
Click to expand...

You can make almost any deduction you want about any fanbase in the world based on a subsection of that fanbase.

Following your logic, I'm going to continue to assume that Cal's fans are a bunch of ultra-liberal hippies that eat sushi at tailgates.
 
#339
#339
The shirt read: BTHO Hippies, as does most of our shirts.

The "fan base" as you call is not solely comprised of the Corp. Actually, the Corps block is considerably smaller today than in the last 20 years. As for the rest of us, we have a name that is nationally recognized. You damn well know it too.
 
#342
#342
TXVOL07 said:
The shirt read: BTHO Hippies, as does most of our shirts.

The "fan base" as you call is not solely comprised of the Corp. Actually, the Corps block is considerably smaller today than in the last 20 years. As for the rest of us, we have a name that is nationally recognized. You damn well know it too.
Click to expand...

Any national recognition is directly attributable to the Corps....
 
#345
#345
I would love to see A&M in the SEC. Also, I don't think they even need a another team for the even numbers. Ga Tech or Clemson can come in whenever they are ready.
 
#349
#349
Ron Mexico said:
Really? Please provide the basis for your argument that my statement doesn't "make sense".
Click to expand...

UGA already owns the Atlanta market. They are much bigger than GT. GT would split the pie without making the pie any bigger.

I have no idea if Clemson is more popular than USCe in that state. Even if they are, SC doesn't have any media markets that would justify adding another mouth to feed.

Anyone who comes in has to make the pie bigger, because the pie gets split again no matter what. That's why GT and Clemson don't make sense.
 
#350
#350
bamawriter said:
UGA already owns the Atlanta market. They are much bigger than GT. GT would split the pie without making the pie any bigger.

I have no idea if Clemson is more popular than USCe in that state. Even if they are, SC doesn't have any media markets that would justify adding another mouth to feed.

Anyone who comes in has to make the pie bigger, because the pie gets split again no matter what. That's why GT and Clemson don't make sense.
Click to expand...

All valid points - and that can be equally applied to VT, just as easily.

They bring zero to the table.

If you SEC expands, all things considered, I think the only sensible choices are TAM and Mizzou (recall that it was Mizzou who first flirted with the Big 10, before either Tehas or Nebraska, got left at the altar, and suddenly looked the man without a home when the Big 12 was set to implode on any given day - they want out as badly as anyone, and would jump at a chance to join the SEC).

The only debate in my mind is whether it's those two, alone, or they grow by four and bring OU and Okie State into the fold too.

Any talk of the SEC either wanting or needing The U, FSU, GT, VT, et al can only come from those who haven't been paying attention.

There is any number of criteria that are undoubtedly being closely weighed, but any school being (seriously) considered has to be exceptionally superior in two primary areas (and being superior in both is obviously most preferred, and by a wide margin):

1. They have to show that they have the necessary infrastructure (ie fan base, money, facilities, commitment, etc.) to put both a competitive and compelling product on the field / court of play, and consistently so. The SEC's strength is, well, it's top-to-bottom strength - and it erodes and dilutes that base by adding someone who isn't at least comparable to the upper half of our conference - with football being the far and away biggest point of emphasis. Of Miami, VT, GT, and FSU....while not abysmal programs in the least, which do you think most closely compares to our upper half?
What's VT or GT ever done? Miami is in a mess, and FSU is only now showing some signs of resurrection (although the issue remains in some doubt as to how well JimBo will ultimately fair) in the very recent past. As soon as the SEC starts to show more games with less of a compelling meaning (i.e. Northwestern v. Indiana, Oregon State v. Arizona State, Duke v. VT, etc. etc.) we will have killed the golden goose, so to speak.

Ok, but let's say I'm wrong - and each of these four teams somehow surpass this first hurdle.

2. Do they BEST increase the SEC's geographic / television market footprint, significantly above what they now enjoy?
TAM, MZ, OU and Okie State do - by geographically moving us into Texas, Oklahoma and Mizzou - the SEC not only enters three new states, but each of which borders the state of a current SEC member (natural rivalries). And in addition, they bring the highly lucrative Texas tv market(s), St. Louis and Kansas City, and (admittedly, to a somewhat lesser degree) the Norman and Ok City markets. What about the other four? Miami, FSU and GT each fail to get us into a new state or an appreciably bigger television market. Outside of a 30-mile radius from the center of Miami and FSU's respective campuses, the Gators own the state of Florida in terms of both attention and viewership. While the Hokies technically get us into a new state - how attractive is that market, really? If you've ever been (un)fortunate enough to visit Blacksburg, you'll know that its not often confused with eithe Dallas or Kansas City (cities which it is ostensibly competing for inclusion, namely, both TAM and Mizzou). And with UT being only a short drive away and VT's campus being so close to the southwestern part of the state, it's hard to imagine that the impact of their inclusion into the SEC would have a significantly positive effect on state viewership - as UVA lies far closer (and easily gets the most attention) to the markets we would most covet and prefer, namely, the DC and Tidewater / Hampton Roads areas, respectively. Perhaps it's a comparable television market to Norman, but still, VT is nowhere near the stature of OU, never has been, and likely, never will be. And you don't get OU without Okie State, but again, even this is more preferred than VT and any one additional team (ie GT, FSU, Miami, etc.) that their inclusion would seem to require (the SEC will expand in even numbers, or not at all).

While it's possible (not plausible, but possible - like Bigfoot) that the SEC isn't primarily concerned with either its competitive balance or the exponential increase of its market share (geographically or tv audience) in it's investigation into expansion, but don't bet on it.

Maybe things simply fall through and the SEC ends up with any one or all of Miami, GT, VT, FSU - they would be significantly less appealing options, and only secondarily chosen as a means of last resort, meaning, we were simply expanding for the sake of expansion, itself.

We'll see soon enough - but that's my $.02.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top