SEC expansion backfiring?
Everything looked great when playoffs were going to 12 and Sankey had Texas and Oklahoma in his back pocket. Now faced with far less playoff spots, the SEC realizes that some teams are actually going to lose alot more games with fewer playoff spots. Deadlocked on scheduling 8 or 9 conference games, some SEC teams will like face 5 top 15 schools a year. No wonder Sankey is floating an all SEC playoff. Teams are going to be hurting. Further, it is being reported that Espn will not pay more for a 9 game schedule than an 8 game schedule. I hope they keep the field at 4 or 8 with autobids. Teach them for being so greedy.
63 Replies
4y
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
4y
lesson after it raided the Big East 3.5 times? I do believe this super conference era may be nothing more than a means to an end. If enough DI schools and media want to reduce the number of schools competing at the DI level, then the schools must create enough separation from the pack to keep the state and federal politicians from trying to influence how things play out. Once enough separation has been created and the schools form a new DI, then the super conferences would be free to break up into smaller conferences again.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
4y
anything the ACC has done. They pushed away Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M with their longhorn network only to run to the SEC. Before that it was Arkansas. Why? Were they not making enough money? Texas and the SEC deserve each other but i dont want to see them take down all of college football because of it.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
My point is that the ACC is no different than the Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC or any other conference when it comes to greed. They all want to do what is in the best for the conference and get the most bang for their buck. Some conferences are just better at playing that game than others.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
The ACC went in search of basketball programs, not football programs. If they were smart, they would have known that football drives the truck...specifically large public universities with good football programs.
But the ACC thought adding small private schools was just as good...lol
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
playing checkers (basing its decisions on 1980s values) while everyone else is playing chess (basing decisions on today's values). ;-)
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
If it wasn't for UVA standing firm, we would have been stuck in the Big Least a few more years...or we would have said "screw it" and pushed hard to join the SEC. Who knows what would have happened if the ACC had passed on us when they did.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
or so years to join the ACC? Desperately wanting to join a conference that is short sighted and may have a history of this type of behavior doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
T
Truthahn
4y
We just needed to add WVU after us, and stop there. Instead we let Donna Shalala influence events.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
J
jmanatVT
4y
I'm not sure there's a major example to point to before the 2000s. Adding FSU and GT in the 80s & 90s suggests the opposite.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
in all sports except football so Georgia Tech could remain an Independent in football. Sound familiar? It wasn't until 1983 that Georgia Tech decided that football should be in the ACC too. WRT the ACC adding FSU, a strong case could be made that it was a reactionary move on the ACC's part. I mean there was a reason the ACC was known as "FSU and the 8 Dwarfs" in football. The short sighted behavior isn't that the ACC added GT and FSU when it did even if both were reactionary moves. The shorted sighted behavior is that football didn't become a bigger priority after adding both schools because the ACC was content with the "Basketball is King" mentality when other conferences and schools were starting to place more emphasis on football in the 80s.
Do you remember the great Eastern Independent schools in football during the 70s and 80s that people would talk about as if it was a conference? The ACC didn't really make much of an effort to tap into that well, which was short sighted given the ACC was the only DI-FBS conference on the East Coast. The ACC had a perfect opportunity to be the first conference to expand to 12 members so it could host a championship game in football. Instead, the SEC turned out to be the visionary conference by being the first to take advantage of that NCAA bylaw. While the ACC finally agreed to do it in 2004 as a reactionary move to seeing how much success the SEC had with that game. If the ACC had been more proactive and a visionary, then it could have add GT, FSU, Penn State, Pitt, and Syracuse to become the first DI-FBS conference to host a championship game in football. If Penn State needed more to convince them to join the ACC, then include Miami and someone else in the mix to get the conference up to 14 members. Instead, the ACC and Big East both allowed Penn State to join the Big Ten. The ACC finally decided to add Pitt and Syracuse after both programs had already become a shell of their former selves. If the ACC had expanded to 12 members in the 80s, then it is likely the Big East Football Conference would not have existed. If the ACC had expanded to 14 members, then it is most likely the Big East wouldn't have entertained the idea because any football conference created wouldn't have been a BCS conference.
(In response to this post by jmanatVT)
2
2hhoop3
4y
was about survival, plain and simple. Neither the ACC or Big East was going to survive holding the status quo and the small private basketball school faction made a merger of the two unlikely at best and financially and operationally untenable at worst. At that point, the only question was which league could entice the football schools of the other league and Swofford, for all his negatives, cleaned Tranghese's clock.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
Yes, the ACC may have survived longer than the Big East as a power football conference. However, the jury is still out on how long the ACC will survive.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4y
is not a permanent guarantee but, a present result. You cannot survive tomorrow if you die today. For all the criticism heaped on Swofford, most not undeserved, he understood the ACC strengths, weaknesses and flaws and was effective playing the long game for conference survival. The conference version of Jimmy V's "Survive and Advance" strategy where he recognized that when trailing in a game and with presently drafted rules the best shot was to extend the game.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
at the end because it has a history of showing up late to the party. I don't disagree that Swofford probably made the most from the hand he was dealt. My concern though (as it relates to VT's well-being) is whether VT really thought things through before joining the ACC or was VT blinded by its 50 year fixation on the ACC to ignore some potential warning signs because the leadership believed that it was in survival mode ever since VT got kicked out of the Metro. Joining the ACC probably was the best decision for VT at the time. However, it may have been the best decision for the short-term and not necessarily for the long-term given some of the questionable decisions the ACC made after VT joined the conference. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you want to look at it), VT leadership has a history of focusing on satisfying short-term goals and not putting enough attention on the long-term goals. The way VT went about expanding the athletic campus by building everything basically right on top of each other and the way it expanded Lane Stadium over the years is proof that the leadership didn't put enough attention on long-term goals (or long-term planning) for VT athletics. Some of that may be changing under Babcock. Only time will tell.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
4y
Remember, all the VT decision makers grew up during the ACC's basketball heyday. They would have been in high school when teachers would bring in TV's to watch the afternoon ACC tourney games.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2
2hhoop3
4y
already dead you have no ability to hold a bag, empty or otherwise. As far as the rest of your post goes we will agree to disagree on lots of things.
First, how late(yes they were late) to the party they were in terms of TV and football has a lot of moving parts. Some the ACC could and should have controlled better while others would have reasonably been considered beyond their control and date to as early as the league formation. As far as a history of being late to the party goes there are a variety of sports and policies/procedures where the ACC is/was a leader and arguably one of the first to the party.
Hindsight is always 50/50 when evaluating short-term versus long term best interests and while we as fans can reasonably differ in opinion it is the administrators with the benefit of the most info who are best equipped to make those decisions.
I think your criticism of the way VT expanded the the athletic campus is one of those hindsight decisions. Some of the later decisions were obviously affected by previous decisions but, given VT's focus on athletics and conference wanderings perhaps those decisions were made through the window that existed at that time. I will also say that my experience with Jim Weaver and Tom Gabbard leads me to believe those gentleman made the decisions they thought best to manage long term goals in the presence of present/short term realities to generate the most effective bang for the buck. I think they did a good job and I doubt many, if any, including the present leadership could/would have done better.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
know what the previous leadership was thinking so we can't rule out the possibility that they had a long-term strategy that didn't put VT on the path to best compete with today's environment. Also, I'm not talking about the leadership from the past 30-40 years. I'm talking about the entire leadership going back to when VT was founded.
Yes, they may those decisions with the best intentions given the information available at the time. However, we will never know if what other options were available at the time. For example, if the leadership up until the 1950s or 1960s was content with seeing VT go down a path similar to the path VMI and The Citadel were taking instead of the path TAMU chose to go down (and I picked TAMU for a specific reason), then it is possible that VT had no interest in leaving the Southern Conference to join a new conference (aka the SEC) assuming that option was on the table. Then when the ACC formed, it is possible the leadership developed tunnel vision and had its heart set on joining the conference which could have resulted in turning down other opportunities along the way. My point is that VT probably bears some responsibility for creating its conference wanderings because of the various decisions made by the leadership at the time. I firmly believe that any decision made doesn't happen in a vacuum which means it could impact future decisions made and even which path VT decides to continue down. Likewise, just because prior leadership made a bad decision, it doesn't necessarily mean the current leadership at whatever point in time compounds the problem by making another bad decision on top of it. An example of a "bad decision" could be the decision to build the East Stands significantly taller than the West Stands from the very beginning. VT could have achieved the same attendance if it had opted to use plans where both stands were the same height or opted to go with a bowl shape design for Lane. Instead, VT chose to go down the path it did which eventually led to future problems when VT was interested in expanding Lane.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
4y
The uppermost sections of the east stands were added during the Dooley years. With the benefit of hindsight, one can argue that Tech would have been better served to use a design with an overhanging upper deck. But beyond being more expensive, getting to 50,000 seats seemed pretty reasonable at the time. Lane's capacity compared well to most of its peers at that time. When I was in school in the 1980s, the only games that filled or came close to filling the stadium were WVU, UVa and Clemson, when those schools brought thousands of visitors.
There's an argument that Tech should not have built such a massive box during the west side renovations and, instead, added another deck with more capacity. That would have been my preference. The perception is that luxury boxes generate more revenue, which is a short-sighted goal in my opinion.
As for creating a bowl, all that would have ever done is create a lot of bad seats. The SEZ structure was the best way to go. Hopefully something similar will come to the NEZ someday, although doing so would not add a lot in capacity.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2
2hhoop3
4y
we can agree to disagree. As far as you choosing A&M for a specific reason, I am not sure what you think that reason might be but, I would caution you to make sure you adequately understand the history, demographics, state politics, etc. to ensure your reasoning is sound. I think you would probably help yourself as well if you make sure you adequately understand the reasons Lane was expanded the way it was at the time instead of just saying they could have done it another way.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
1. TAMU is a land-grant university.
2. TAMU was founded in 1876 which was around the same time VT was founded.
3. TAMU is a senior military college (aka Corps of Cadets) with a small enrollment in its early years.
4. TAMU leadership made different decisions than VT leadership which altered the path TAMU chose to go down in terms of both academics and athletics. Some examples include increasing the size of the enrollment, establishing a TAMU university system in 1948, used a different plan to expand Kyle Field over the years, and other little things over the years.
FWIW Kyle Field existed in a rudimentary form since 1904, but it wasn't until 1927 that it became a permanent concrete stadium that you see in the picture.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4y
However, your response doesn't address how those same things may lead to different decisions. Was the makeup of colleges/universities in Texas different than Virginia and might have required A&M to meet a different demand? Does population growth and characteristics as well as state government mandates play a role? You said earlier decisions are not made in a vacuum and that is true and although entities may have similarities it does not mean that there are not underlying differences influencing different paths.
The decisions on expanding Lane at the time revolved around getting a desired capacity within the structural and financial constraints as they existed at the time. It is true Lane maybe could have been expanded with equal sides and possibly designed to be bowled in, however, you still had a relatively new structure, including the press box that would have needed to be demolished and rebuilt. There was no Texas oil money at the time in Blacksburg. Also, the desired capacity fit the projected demand at the time. VT was not busting at the seams with the original 35,000 seat Lane and expanding to 52,500 was a reasonable upgrade and in line with peers at the time. A&M does have similarities to VT but, Texas oil money is a huge differentiator.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
4y
(aka small land-grant military school) and they have ended up on different paths, then that is why they are perfect for comparison because it would identify all the other factors that influenced the school and/or state government to make the decisions they did at any given time. Based on the research I have done for both schools, it appears that the decisions TAMU made in the early 1900s is what allowed TAMU to end up where it is today. While it appears that VT didn't make those decisions until much later.
WRT Lane, you are forgetting that when Stuart Cassell proposed building a larger stadium in 1963 to replace Miles Stadium, the project was going to be done over 4 years (1964-68). So there was no risk of demolishing anything because the original construction would have simply followed a different blueprint. Remember when VT played its first game in 1965 against W&M, only the West Stands and center section of the East Stands were completed at the time. My point is that VT decided in the initial construction to have the East and West Stands be different heights for whatever reason. As a result of that decision, it created unnecessary challenges for any future expansion. Given that initial 4-year project officially cost $3.5 million, I do believe VT could have built either a bowl or have the East and West Stands equal height for the same dollar amount and probably the same capacity of 35,050. If VT had gone that route, then any future expansion probably would have been done differently even if Lane still ended up with the same capacity it is today.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4y
to do more research in both areas. As far as the stadium goes the design and construction of the original press box is what affected the varying heights and is what affected the subsequent expansion. Maybe some engineers who were around at the time or might have knowledge can chime in. The ones I knew and were around then are dead now but, what I have told you is what they told me.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
H
HOO86
4y
That is so wrong on so many levels. They won't play in South Bend, IN in November because it's too Cold. Now they are considering an entire league of too Cold? That's ridiculous. But they are thinking that the B1G will be able to pay them. It will be interesting to watch how this new Big XII spread out from UCF to BYU is going to work. That's quite a lot of travel.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
V
Vippie1
4y
yeah it is legitimately being talked about by some talking heads - but it has gotta be a doomsday option for USC. It would be insane for anything not football. I think USC is just throwing the kitchen sink out there to try and get the rest of the PAC to step up (or trying to set the stage for negotiating some Texas -Big Xii type favorite son deal).
(In response to this post by HOO86)
The Rose Bowl used to be appointment viewing before the BCS and CFP.
What I think the SEC and now the Big Ten, and college football in general are forgetting is that "balance of power" is sometimes a necessity. It's true in geopolitics. And it's true in college football.
What made the Rose Bowl great, among many things, is that it paired the champion of the West and the champion of the Midwest. The game had intrigue. It was also something people could count on--nowadays, it's just the best two available who play in the Rose Bowl. Yes, I realize it's still a nice game. But not what it used to be.
And to think, now the shining star of the West might come across the country and play in the Midwest? Just doesn't seem right.
If the B1G and the SEC are going to carve up the nation and call the shots, I'd rather them just cut to the chase and do it. Otherwise, once they think they've reached their destination sometime in the distant future, they might turn around and realize they lost a lot of fans along the way.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
T
Truthahn
4y
Eight teams with the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton hosting the first round with their traditional conference tie-ins intact would be great for the playoffs and the bowls.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
4y
for the championship game. Even then, it ruins that game. That is a bucket list item for me, but I'm losing motivation to go every year.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
4y
(In response to this post by reestuart)
4y
Unless it is a full on merger. USC sending all it sports 5 hours away for every other game is crazy.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
The P12 is limited on the peer schools they can invite...just not a lot in the western region. Guess they'll have to raid the B12 to replace USC, and anyone they invite will have a serious travel budget increase.
Guess it's just another domino to fall on the way to a two mega-conference league...
(In response to this post by HOO86)
4y
could pull in TX and we all thought it would be great. If VT was getting paid SEC school type money would you think that VT was being greedy?
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
There was no way Big TX was going to join the ACC...just too far away. They would have been in the B1X, P12, or SEC before joining the ACC.
Although they bring "clout," really didn't want them throwing their weight around in our conference. Needless to say, I didn't think it would be great if they joined. If we were taking a Texas school, would much rather have aTm.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
T
Truthahn
4y
All of the TX home ACC games could have been on the Longhorn network. And we get the other four TX away games in the ACC TV package (plus TX could be in our championship game), sort of a hybrid-ND deal, but with TX actually playing a full ACC schedule.
It might have been good for both TX and the ACC to do that.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
TX = lots of money and think that they should control college sports
aTm = lots of money and they have "little brother syndrome" and act like spoiled brats
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
them both take beatings.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
4y
How many Conferences has Texas destroyed? They havent even joined and they are already causing issues. The old guard is going to realize that competition and winning are going to get alot tougher. As if it wasnt already.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
4y
Unfortunately, there is still just one SEC champion, and under current rules still only one other SEC team can make the playoff as an at large.
So a lot of schools & their delusional fan bases are going to end up firing a coach with a mega contract while hiring anothe coach with a mega contract.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2
2hhoop3
4y
that when you finally get a date you suddenly realize you got an empty bag that expects you to fill it only to discover it has no bottom.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
Guess what else is going to be causing issues? Scheduling.
The SEC is going to make the same mistake the ACC did. Expand the conference without expanding the conference schedule. I think this will cause the middle of the road long-time SEC schools to get lost in the shuffle. I know that now that college football is removing divisions, that that might help. But still, it will cause long-standing annual series to be discontinued. No one knows what theses series will be yet, but rest assured, someone is going to be pissed off.
The more members you invite to any club, the less exclusive the club becomes, even if the new members are worthy. At the minimum, it dilutes the culture. This has happened with the ACC for sure. Like all these conference expansions, there is a question as to whether or not the money is worth it in the end. And further, what if these moves "kills the golden goose" and the fan base deteriorates and the money dries up?
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
4y
part. The Big12 needed TX and would do anything to keep them. The SEC will tell them that they are free to leave at any time if they dont like the way the SEC is run. Kinda like how the SEC put aTm in is place - aTm thought they could influence the SEC when it came to adding TX and Okl - the SEC told them to pound sand. If/when TX tries to over reach - the SEC will do the same to them. The SEC is the ONLY conference that can "control" TX, aTm,.....
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
...down to no more than 8 bids, with each P5 champion getting an automatic bid, and the highest G5 champion getting one bid. Restrict conferences from getting more than 1 "at large" bid. Independents will fight for one of the two remaining "at large" bids, along with all of the P5 conferences.
If a conference gets two teams into the playoff, they need to play their first playoff game against each other.
The SEC wants to flood the playoff with their teams. Lets make sure that doesn't happen.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
T
Truthahn
4y
Auto include the top 4 teams, then fill out the rest with conference champs.
This amounts to virtually the same list as yours, but would result in fewer second teams/ND included. It sets a higher bar for that second conference team and Notre Dame, and no real excuses if they miss out.
The SEC or B10 will never have three (or four) teams in the top four, IMO. So, there is no need to limit it.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
When a "top-10" SEC team loses to one of their "cellar dwellers," they may drop one spot, but when a "top 10" ACC team loses to another ranked ACC team, it drops a minimum of 6 places. That's been going on for years, and is being pushed by ESPN.
Yeah, the top 2-3 SEC schools are usually among the best in the country, their #4-12 are not anything special, although they really want to stuff the playoff with those schools too.
Keep the playoff small, and limit conference to no more than 2 teams!
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
4y
"top 4, then conf champs, max of two per conf, max one indy" would allow a max of two at larges, but it would require that those at larges all be ranked in the top four. That is, a threat to actually win it.
I usually side with letting in more conf champs, rather than second P5s.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
Is in the hands of the Alliance and their majority voting. No way they set it up for a Sec favorable field which it was headed to with 12. When A&M leaked the OU T news it was the best thing to happen. I think that is why Sankey is threatening their own playoff.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
M
Mercury
4y
Texas and frankly a@m stired up the old swc and ark lef - when rhe merger with big 8 texas and a&m and rheir perceived entitlement and mebraska and mo leave . Even a&m were tired of texas.
Now qe are i! The sec and guess what texas and a&m stirring it up and entitlement of texas schools. Keep it up and the old sec might say hell with it
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
4y
That league will beat itself into something they not use to. More coach pressure. More kids get fat happy with money in pockets already. More fan craziness if that can happen in SEC. Going to be tough league and much firings.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
T
Truthahn
4y
If we can shape the playoffs to keep it from rewarding the SEC's recent expansion, then they will eventually become closer to even with everyone else. The new SEC will have some future perennially bad teams at places like Texas, Auburn, Tenn, South Carolina, Florida, etc.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
I thought that when the CFP-12 scheme fell through, that UT and OU might
just decide to stay in the BigXII till all the smoke clears. That way, they'd still have better access to the CFP-4 and wouldn't have to deal with the buyout from leaving early.
Don't know the latest. Haven't followed it much since it was announced.
A&M spilled the beans of the OU/UT to SEC thing before the SEC and OU/UT could line up their ducks on the CFP-12 plan. Good plot for a soap opera though.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
M
Mercury
4y
The southern conference was huge and had all the schools from vt and all the SEC.
The SEC schools left the southern and created the SEC. (also with GT, Tulane as well). Could we see Southern again with again a separation??? Could we see GA and FLa have enough of the SEC drama and consider ACC??? crazier stuff can happen. but bottom line
SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN any entity has to DEAL with a TEXAS schools, ( i mean A&M and Texas) nothing but trouble and drama. ITs not worth the change in portfolio.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
I think the average tenure for a SEC football coach is about 1.2 years, with Saban skewing the average up.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
I've always loved the SEC culture. But their actions, along with ESPN
and Texas are gross. A total turn off. I am less interest in college football as a whole. And I am 5-decade fan of the sport. I follow the Hokies now. That's it.
UT and OU to the SEC is the biggest blow to traditional college football that I've see, Worse than NIL. Worse than CFP expansion.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
...to the core beneath the surface. If VT ever joined the SEC, they would have to throw out all integrity and play "cut throat" SEC games to win.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
4y
fit, but if something happens, VT fits in with the Big Ten much better than SEC.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
...to join the B1X?
(In response to this post by reestuart)
4y
However, the AAU rule was abandoned when Nebraska was invited.
Much like the ACC's insistence on excellent academic reputation. That ACC rule went out the window when Loserville was invited.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
could be the trigger of something needed. It will still take time but I think college football will eventually end up boring. Changes will have to be made. Many will desire back to the future. All in next quarter of century.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
4y
I'll be 75 this coming football season. When I hit eighty I strongly doubt college football, in whatever form, will be of concern to me.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
...no wonder they wouldn't pay for for an extra conference game.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)