What do you think about expansion?

I haven't been perceptive enough to figure out how you folks feel about it. I personally hate it. I hate what it will do to the league scheduling in particular. If you have an 8-game conference slate you play two west teams per year. That means we would play Auburn -- a historical foe -- once every six years, not counting the SEC championship. If it is 9 games, you can kiss scheduling the Notre Dames, Ohio States, and Nebraskas good bye. Why would any AD or coach agree to any non-conference game that isn't a cream puff?

I also think that with Missouri in particular, it changes the culture of the league. It isn't a southern state, and Columbia isn't a southern town. Also Mizzou is historically an afterthought in football. It upgrades basketball for sure, but let's face it, the league doesn't really care about that.

Tell me I am wrong. What good can come of this?

 

It's a complete affront to anyone who values the history of college athletics. The more I see of the unfettered greed guiding college athletics, the more I like the way the Ivy League does business.

 

Unless I'm botching the math, we won't play Auburn that often.

 

Watering down SEC tradition. Hate it.

 

I look at it this way. If you kill all the historical rivalries and geographical connections that make college sports unique and make it simply Pro Sports Lite, why the hell wouldn't I just watch the real pros?

 

One of the best things about college sports are the tradition and history that's being thrown out the window.

 

This latest round of realignment silliness has probably destroyed the Texas-Texas A&M and Kansas-Missouri rivalries. That should make anyone who actually cares about college sports sick to their stomach.

 

Not a fan, but two "positives":

1. $

2. With the current strength of the West, it gives us an easier path to higher bowl games.

I do wonder how this will change bowl bids. I think the SEC needs another bowl tie-in.

 

We'll simply take one from the Big 12.

 

TAMU seems happy to flip Texas the bird though.

 

I absolutely hate it. Does the SEC not already have the greatest football conference around? Why do need to bring in more teams? The basketball teams are also pretty damn good. Same goes for baseball, softball, etc. All of the conferences' sports are already good. At least flip a middle finger to all the other conferences and honor the traditions for once.

 

They're just mad they are, were, and will always be number 2 in the Lone Star State.

 

It has nothing to do with on field product. It's all about "television footprints" and multiplatform media rights.

 

I suppose you're right. Damn the money for once, I would still rather keep things the way they are.

 

more TVS = new media contract = more money.

sad, but true.

 

Short-sighted and greedy. It's a shame.

 

You have to admit though, adding Texas markets, plus Kansas City and St. Louis is pretty big.

 

9 conference games it is. This is from the school newspaper at USC, but the kid interviewed the president of the university at least.

Pastides: SEC schools will now play nine conference football games

 

I don't see how adding middling teams from the Midwest ultimately helps the brand, even if the SEC makes some more TV coin in the short term.

 

I don't understand, as a fan of UT and college football in general, why bigger is better. The only thing expansion will accomplish is increasing the revenue dollars that the conference shares with its member institutions from TV deals. What does that do for me as a fan and supporter of Tennessee?