I don't know about "slightly", but regardless, that trend would keep even if you went back 10,20,30 or 40 years.
That UGA game and the 93 AL games are the two games I hate more than all the rest. Freaking Fulmer conservatism in full flight.
I think we've concluded that an expansion to 16 teams will cause issues for some schools in the league, I don't see any way around it.
And let's not pretend like going to divisions and a championship game didn't do the same thing, but I think many see that the gains outweigh the losses (not all, but many). The BCS, too. And now the playoffs. College football has always been a weird sport with constant changes to it's structure.
Nonexistent. In my eyes the swapping of Auburn for South Carolina is not equalized by watching LSU play Florida in Atlanta in December. Regardless, the dissolution of those rivalries makes the ones remaining all the more important.
The ones remaining like UT/Bama and Georgia/Auburn? Yeah. The ones that got made up in 1992? We could lose a few of those and be no worse for the wear I'm not saying we need to go to 16 teams. I'm saying that we could go to 16 teams and come up with a relatively straightforward schedule that preserves all or almost all of the oldest and best rivalries in the SEC.
The people making the decision don't give the first damn about UT's rivalry with UGA. It would swept aside with out a second thought if it were convenient to do so. We aren't going to get a better product because of expansion. We didn't the last two times and we sure as hell won't this time.
Should they give a damn about the UT/UGA rivalry. It didn't exist before the 90s and is no higher than third in the pecking order of conference rivalries for either team. If we ditch UGA, South Carolina, and Missouri in favor of Virginia Tech, Arkansas, and more frequent games against the rotating opponents, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
I'm not saying it's better. I am saying it wouldn't really bother me. That said, once you add in playing all the SEC West teams once every three years instead of once every six years, you could argue that it's better, depending on how interested you are in games against Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss
Kentucky would no more want Kansas than South Carolina would want Clemson, Florida would want Miami, etc. They wouldn't want another legit hoops team in the conference, especially one with the stature and history of Kansas. But if the SEC is ever going to get serious about basketball, and I think they want to be (at the Conference level, at least) - then you've got to do a helluva lot more than micromanage out of conference scheduling. Adding a Kansas (or its equivalent..Duke, UNC, etc.) would advance that process faster and better than anything else. And, I don't think Kentucky could stop Kansas' entry into the SEC. No football-first schools would veto it (hey, free wins!), it's not an in-state school so that is excuse is also out the window, and I think most SEC schools would like to see someone challenge Kentucky in hoops, and would support it.
Anything that VT/WVU would bring - and I think it's next to nothing, compared to what the SEC gets now, without them - would be absolutely dwarfed by what UNC / Duke would bring in basketball, academic standing and media markets. Where VT and WVU have a definite edge over UNC / Duke in football, it isn't an insurmountable difference, by any means. Plus, we aren't exactly hurting for great football teams in the SEC. But what UNC / Duke would bring in basketball, academics and media markets would tower over both VT / WV's contributions in each area - and in what are probably the SEC's two biggest areas of need.
It's the 30th best University in America, ranking ahead of every SEC school except Vanderbilt. I'd say that's "something", and certainly more than a mistaken perception based on the acceptance rates of out-of-state applicants. Link: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/page+3
