Texas A&M leaves Big 12 (officially)

#26
#26
Highly doubt we'll lose the Bama game (although it's possible), but it's depressing to see the college football landscape narrowed down to four or five conferences.

Of course, if this brings a playoff, I might be for it.
 
#27
#27
Vercingetorix said:
Totally underwhelmed by this. We're likely to lose the yearly game with Bama in return for going to College Station once a decade. Great.

Plus we're going to have to water down the conference even more by adding an underwhelming 14th team that probably won't even justify itself with a huge TV market.

I get the inexorable logic of money, TV markets, and the arms race mentality, but there's nothing good about this for the fans.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have summed up my sentiments more precisely.

It kills me how people seem to think they can have their cake and eat it too, but something is going to have to be sacrificed in the name of making more money, and it seems that UT/Bama and Auburn/UGA will be two of those things. The last thing that was able to keep those rivalries from being renewed each fall was WWII, but apparently blatant corporate greed can put a stop to them as well. Absolutely pathetic IMO.
 
#29
#29
bleedorange0037 said:
Couldn't have summed up my sentiments more precisely.

It kills me how people seem to think they can have their cake and eat it too, but something is going to have to be sacrificed in the name of making more money, and it seems that UT/Bama and Auburn/UGA will be two of those things. The last thing that was able to keep those rivalries from being renewed each fall was WWII, but apparently blatant corporate greed can put a stop to them as well. Absolutely pathetic IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't see how they can keep the permanent opponent unless they go to a nine game conference schedule, which of course they won't do because they'll never agree to give up an extra game of cupcake money. If you stay at 8 games and you have 7 teams in each division and you keep a permanent opponent, then after you play a home and home against, say, Auburn, you don't see them again for what, 12 years? That's not workable. And then the math gets even worse when they (as seems inevitable) eventually go to 16 teams.

And really, UT-Alabama is the only one that people will shed a tear over. The Georgia people I know regard Auburn as their third or fourth biggest rival; the Auburn people I know care more about Alabama and LSU than they do the leghumpers. The Gators I know regard their LSU rivalry as more of a competitive disadvantage than anything else. So when they get around the table to figure out what to do with the schedule, I just don't see how the permanent opponent thing survives.

Best bet is probably to add a second team in the west and then realign the conferences in a way that puts UT and Alabama in the same division. But how do you do that and not split up Alabama and Auburn? It ain't gonna work.
 
#30
#30
sammyjoey said:
Report: Texas A&M notifies Big 12 that it will leave conference - ESPN
Click to expand...

Not+so+fast+my+friend.jpg
 
#32
#32
TrueOrange said:
paranoia and fear
Click to expand...

That continues to be the argument that is made because it's easy to brush it off and asusme "that will never happen", but like vercingetorix laid out, simple math dicates that some rivalries are going to be lost in order to add new teams. It won't just be business as usual with a couple more teams getting in on the fun. That's just not how things work.
 
#33
#33
Vercingetorix said:
I don't see how they can keep the permanent opponent unless they go to a nine game conference schedule, which of course they won't do because they'll never agree to give up an extra game of cupcake money. If you stay at 8 games and you have 7 teams in each division and you keep a permanent opponent, then after you play a home and home against, say, Auburn, you don't see them again for what, 12 years? That's not workable. And then the math gets even worse when they (as seems inevitable) eventually go to 16 teams.

And really, UT-Alabama is the only one that people will shed a tear over. The Georgia people I know regard Auburn as their third or fourth biggest rival; the Auburn people I know care more about Alabama and LSU than they do the leghumpers. The Gators I know regard their LSU rivalry as more of a competitive disadvantage than anything else. So when they get around the table to figure out what to do with the schedule, I just don't see how the permanent opponent thing survives.

Best bet is probably to add a second team in the west and then realign the conferences in a way that puts UT and Alabama in the same division. But how do you do that and not split up Alabama and Auburn? It ain't gonna work.
Click to expand...

I still like this setup: The Final Four of College Football in the SEC? Dare to Dream The expansion candidates are off though.
 
Last edited:
#35
#35
CountVolcula said:
Why would the Bama game have to be sacrificed?

Sounds like too much drama
Click to expand...

TrueOrange said:
paranoia and fear
Click to expand...

All right, if it's just drama and paranoia, then please explain exactly how the schedule would work in a 14-team conference with two divisions of 7 teams. For extra credit, go ahead and figure out how you're going to do it with 16 teams, since everybody takes it as a given that that's where we're going eventually.

One of the big reasons for adding A&M is for recruiting and access to Texas players, right? Consider this: if the SEC had 7 teams in each division, and the schedule worked like it does now, and we had played in College Station in, say, our championship season of 1998, we would just now be going back out there this season. You think the Eastern Division schools are going to be happy with that little access to this giant fertile Texas recruiting ground they're adding?
 
#36
#36
Vercingetorix said:
All right, if it's just drama and paranoia, then please explain exactly how the schedule would work in a 14-team conference with two divisions of 7 teams. For extra credit, go ahead and figure out how you're going to do it with 16 teams, since everybody takes it as a given that that's where we're going eventually.

One of the big reasons for adding A&M is for recruiting and access to Texas players, right? Consider this: if the SEC had 7 teams in each division, and the schedule worked like it does now, and we had played in College Station in, say, our championship season of 1998, we would just now be going back out there this season. You think the Eastern Division schools are going to be happy with that little access to this giant fertile Texas recruiting ground they're adding?
Click to expand...

They won't be able to do it. They'll just say go to 4 divisions and add a 9th conference game, neither of which is likely to happen. 4 divisions would require a 4-team playoff, which I'm pretty sure isn't even allowed under NCAA rules. A ninth conference game won't likely happen because schools aren't going to be thrilled about the competitive imbalance brought about by half the conference getting an extra home game as well as losing the free OOC win you mentioned earlier.

With all that in mind, they'll still be adamant that the Bama rivalry game isn't going anywhere because "that could never happen".
 
#37
#37
bleedorange0037 said:
That continues to be the argument that is made because it's easy to brush it off and asusme "that will never happen", but like vercingetorix laid out, simple math dicates that some rivalries are going to be lost in order to add new teams. It won't just be business as usual with a couple more teams getting in on the fun. That's just not how things work.
Click to expand...

and you keep using the same argument that's been shown to be incorrect through a multitude of moves

people are just starting to get tired of having to tell you the exact same points again when it appears all you'll do is just tune them out and maybe say "no, my way is right; it can't end well (and I'm scared)"


...seriously dude, you're like starting to get to the point of those guys who's sole argument on Vince Young was simply "And what's his win-loss record again?"
 
#39
#39
Vercingetorix said:
All right, if it's just drama and paranoia, then please explain exactly how the schedule would work in a 14-team conference with two divisions of 7 teams. For extra credit, go ahead and figure out how you're going to do it with 16 teams, since everybody takes it as a given that that's where we're going eventually.

One of the big reasons for adding A&M is for recruiting and access to Texas players, right? Consider this: if the SEC had 7 teams in each division, and the schedule worked like it does now, and we had played in College Station in, say, our championship season of 1998, we would just now be going back out there this season. You think the Eastern Division schools are going to be happy with that little access to this giant fertile Texas recruiting ground they're adding?
Click to expand...

give me a minute. my mac force reloaded my page and deleted my response


simply put though: they'd change the way the scheduling works...the same way they had to adapt the scheduling once Arky and USCe was added. It's not going to just "stay the same"
 
#40
#40
TrueOrange said:
and you keep using the same argument that's been shown to be incorrect through a multitude of moves

people are just starting to get tired of having to tell you the exact same points again when it appears all you'll do is just tune them out and maybe say "no, my way is right; it can't end well (and I'm scared)"


...seriously dude, you're like starting to get to the point of those guys who's sole argument on Vince Young was simply "And what's his win-loss record again?"
Click to expand...

Again you avoid the task at hand, you just say "that'll never happen". Show me an 8 game SEC schedule for a 2 division, 16 team conference where UT gets to keep playing Alabama every year and I'll let this go.
 
#41
#41
bleedorange0037 said:
They won't be able to do it. They'll just say go to 4 divisions and add a 9th conference game, neither of which is likely to happen. 4 divisions would require a 4-team playoff, which I'm pretty sure isn't even allowed under NCAA rules. A ninth conference game won't likely happen because schools aren't going to be thrilled about the competitive imbalance brought about by half the conference getting an extra home game as well as losing the free OOC win you mentioned earlier.

With all that in mind, they'll still be adamant that the Bama rivalry game isn't going anywhere because "that could never happen".
Click to expand...

see here's your point that makes little sense. An uneven conference schedule has been done by multiple conferences over the years. The whole "competitive imbalance created" is almost as silly as "well we'll have 14 teams in two separate divisions that only interact with one game a year and teams can only play each other every 12 years"
 
#42
#42
bleedorange0037 said:
Again you avoid the task at hand, you just say "that'll never happen". Show me an 8 game SEC schedule for a 2 division, 16 team conference where UT gets to keep playing Alabama every year and I'll let this go.
Click to expand...

There is no way that there will be an 8 game league schedule in a 16 team, 2 division SEC. I don't know why you want that laid out for you, because I don't see anyone suggesting that it will happen, or should.
 
#43
#43
MystifyingVol said:
I still like this setup: The Final Four of College Football in the SEC? Dare to Dream The expansion candidates are off though.
Click to expand...

That layout would be awesome for fans, but I can't see it happening. Nick Saban (and therefore Alabama, and therefore the SEC) will never agree to it. You go 12-0, you finish undefeated....and then you've got to win not one extra game, but two? I can't see the SEC coaches agreeing to anything that makes the route to the championship game that much harder.

(The perfect way to do this, of course, is based on this: four 16-team conferences. Four divisions. There's your sixteen-team playoff right there. It makes too much sense to ever happen.)
 
#44
#44
bamawriter said:
There is no way that there will be an 8 game league schedule in a 16 team, 2 division SEC. I don't know why you want that laid out for you, because I don't see anyone suggesting that it will happen, or should.
Click to expand...

Is the 4-team conference playoff that would be required if you had 4 divisions even permissible under NCAA rules? If not, 2 divisions of 8 is the only option.
 
#45
#45
Volfan76 said:
I find it odd that they would announce this before the sec presidents have even voted to allow them into the sec.... especially since they have voted not to allow them once already. seems like slive is making some promises a little prematurely.
Click to expand...

that was done so that Big 12 wouldn't sue the conference like what happened when the ACC went out courting Big East teams

SI.com - College Football - Big East sues to try to prevent ACC expansion - Friday June 06, 2003 08:01 PM


If the SEC does something like offer an invite before the team leaves, if can go right to the courts for tortuous (sp?) intentions
 
#46
#46
Vercingetorix said:
(The perfect way to do this, of course, is based on this: four 16-team conferences. Four divisions. There's your sixteen-team playoff right there. It makes too much sense to ever happen.)
Click to expand...
It may be harder to keep the UT/Bama rivalry that way, unless UT and Bama are in the same division.
 
#47
#47
bleedorange0037 said:
Again you avoid the task at hand, you just say "that'll never happen". Show me an 8 game SEC schedule for a 2 division, 16 team conference where UT gets to keep playing Alabama every year and I'll let this go.
Click to expand...

...so i have just been avoiding it?

i and several other have been over the ways multiple times with regards to how this can work in the other threads. Why do i - and everyone else by that matter - need to repost it in every single thread regarding the matter or else it's considered "avoidance?" That becomes just redundancy more than anything else
 
#48
#48
Does anyone in the Big 12, other than Baylor and Iowa State, care if Texas A&M leaves?
 
#49
#49
TrueOrange said:
see here's your point that makes little sense. An uneven conference schedule has been done by multiple conferences over the years. The whole "competitive imbalance created" is almost as silly as "well we'll have 14 teams in two separate divisions that only interact with one game a year and teams can only play each other every 12 years"
Click to expand...

I don't think the competitive imbalance of a 9-game schedule is a serious problem; it balances out every other year so people could go along with it. But I think there are two reasons they won't go there: A) it would require every school to give up one of their $3-4 million cupcake paydays every year, and B) the coaches will be adamantly opposed to adding an extra conference game and making a national championship run that much tougher. Why would Nick Saban agree to swap Georgia State out for a game against Georgia or South Carolina every year?

I don't doubt that they'll revamp the way the schedule works somewhat, but some of you guys are a little naive if you think that the SEC (and CBS and ESPN) are automatically going to prioritize something intangible (preserving three traditional rivalry games) in this process. The Big 12 killed Oklahoma/Nebraska. Anything's possible.
 
#50
#50
bleedorange0037 said:
Is the 4-team conference playoff that would be required if you had 4 divisions even permissible under NCAA rules? If not, 2 divisions of 8 is the only option.
Click to expand...

Just have the two division winners with the best conference records play in the title game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top