The SEC is Whiffing Big Time

[Mars]

The SEC is supposedly the strongest football conference in the nation, and is #2 in money. Their champ has won the last 3 BCS championship games. They've even won a couple basketball national championships lately.

Meanwhile, the PAC-10 is thought of as the 3rd, 4th, or 5th best football conference (unfairly or not), and they make the 5th most money. They also became the first BCS conference to send only 2 teams to the NCAA tournament this past year.

And yet...

The PAC-10 offered a new home for 6 Big XII teams, and it seems as though they collectively jumped at the occasion.

Shortly after, the SEC countered with invites to Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. Only A&M has even considered the invite, while the other 3 simply said "no thanks". And A&M may still head west.

Pretty embarrassing for those southerners, right? I mean, is Texas a southern state or a Pacific state? I guess ACADEMICS do still matter to some people.

Cheer up SEC folks- there's always the ACC!

[Cougarfan87]

...or they don't want any part of getting beat up in the SEC. Culturally, they are a much better fit in the SEC, their games would be televised in a time when people would actually watch on the East Coast, and there are plenty of SEC schools that have great academics (SEC has three schools in the Top 60, while Big 12 only has one--SEC also has only two tier 3 schools while the Big 12 has three). So, why the PAC 10? Oklahoma got worked by Florida a couple of years ago. Texas just got beaten by Alabama (even though I think they win that game if McCoy doesn't get hurt) and those were their two best programs. They can go to the PAC 10 and dominate immediately. Ask Arkansas how well it has worked out for them since leaving the former SWC and joining the SEC.

[craigoscarson]

more money, more problems?

You can't have a megaconference without a bunch of doormats. !6 teams means that aside from a few frontrunners, no one else looks like world beaters... ever.

The Pac 16 chooses money and Texas stays the front runner, but many of the others will end up sub .500 teams for their entirety.

The money is right but eventually losing can get expensive too; just ask your donors, ticket sales, and tv ratings.

The bigger conf is about TV money, not about competitive balance.

The WAC was a failure, I'm not sure how in some ways this new conference won't be; except at the end of the day a lot of people will make more money.

[SpiffCoug]

The WAC was a failure, I'm not sure how in some ways this new conference won't be; except at the end of the day a lot of people will make more money.

Because there will actually be some serious TV money to prop the conference up that the WAC couldn't get.

[craigoscarson]

The WAC was a failure, I'm not sure how in some ways this new conference won't be; except at the end of the day a lot of people will make more money.

Because there will actually be some serious TV money to prop the conference up that the WAC couldn't get.

Money can't buy competitive balance though (unless you're USC..)... I agree it's obviously much stronger but I wonder if they'll see the some of the same problems just due to the size standpoint.

[SpiffCoug]

True. I'm not sure you'll have more than a few elite teams and a lot of mediocre team.

[craigoscarson]

True. I'm not sure you'll have more than a few elite teams and a lot of mediocre team.

Ultimately, there can be only one top dog (which is why I see USC losing dearly during this transition; they just lost their place on the perch). So their top dog gets better, but there will be more sub .500 mutts.

Not everyone wins here, a lot just get more money for their schools and become less competitive in the revenue sports. If you're an accountant, you're fine with that.

If you're a fan of Arizona, Arizona State, Washington State, Colorado, Texas Tech? You better be ready to lose, and lose a lot. (same reason I don't fear Utah leaving... they would be the doormat and have a better chance at a big postseason game in the MWC.. which we've already seen)

For every Florida, LSU and Alabama, there has to be a struggling Auburn, South Carolina, Arkansas and a piss poor Kentucky and Vanderbilt. It's not all going to be wine and roses.

[bplewe]

Academics do matter, to the University presidents (and hardly anyone else). I believe I've heard that at both Texas and A&M, the presidents want to go to the PAC and the coaches and ADs want to go to the SEC. Guess it depends on what you consider "trading up." The fact is, there are only three conferences where the entire university has a sense of belonging, not just sports (that is, the PoliSci department will discuss its conference peers): PAC 10, Big 10, and Ivy League. As a BYU professor, I feel no sense of comraderie (or rivalry) with my corresponding department at SDSU or CSU.

Not that that really matters, but it isn't any more silly than making such broadly impacting decisions on money from one sport.

[Lawboy]

Texas wants the PAC, and the coaches and Pres also want the PAC. A&M trustees, such as Gene Stallings--former FB coach at Alabama--are leading the SEC charge. Everyone else wants the affiliation with PAC10 schools and the Rose Bowl tie in. I think the fact that A&M might escape the Texas shadow in the same conference might be an issue as well.