Blog article out of Birmingham discussing possible Big 10 expansion.This writer opines that a Big 10 expansion "game changer",perhaps like Texas or maybe even ND "could" get the SEC thinking beyond 12 schools.As things currently stand this is probably a stretch but time will ultimately tell.Link at http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/02/repo ... h_big.html

Doesn't sound like a stretch to me.

Just imagine if everyone wanted to start from scratch.

It makes me wonder what would happen if Florida & Texas got together as the core teams for a new conference with members of their own choosing. I doubt that they'd be including 2-team representation from a tiny state like Mississippi.

Good article. Thanks for the link.

So true. Like an SEC-A and SEC B

SEC-A (the cha-ching conference)
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, LSU

SEC-B:
East: Iowa St, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St, Kansas St., Oklahoma St,
West: Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Colorado, BYU

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Maybe the SEC should be proactive & beat the Big Ten to the punch. Imagine how an expanded SEC could market itself with the following membership:

East Division:
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Tennessee
Kentucky

West Division:
Auburn
Misissippi
Mississippi State
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
LSU
Texas
Texas A&M

Then they could lobby for the Cotton Bowl as a BCS site & to be in the rotation for the SEC championship game to bring major college football back to Dallas

Article about Clemson in the SEC.
http://thetandd.com/articles/2010/02/15 ... 083059.txt

There have been a number of such speculation pieces about 12 team conferences like the SEc going to 14.

The issue they leave out is that IF the SEC were to goto 14, they would likely bring in schools that would increase their market coverage/revenue. It's unlikely that the sEc would just bring in a school(s) in small markets they already dominate. It's why the Texas.texas A&M in the SEC scenario makes so much sense (local rivals like Arkansas, LSU...big programs to team up with like Florida, alabama, etc)

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

The SEC may need to move fast and make some quick modifications to get Texas before the Big Ten snatches them up.

What if the SEC drops a couple bottom feeders of Mississippi State and Vanderbilt to free up space for a super conference of 16 schools.

Based on rules that will drive super conferences
1 Money- any school must bring in additional TV markets and money (primary reason that Miss State and Vanderbilt our dropped)
2 Expansion schools must have football attendance of 60 thousand average with plans to reach 80 thousand average within a certain time frame (primary reason the Duke's of the world will not be included)

The new SEC East retains Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and raids the ACC for Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, and Virginia. Duke is left behind due to football attendance and North Carolina and Kentucky become huge conference basketball rivals.

The new SEC west moves over Tennessee and retains Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas and adds Texas and Texas A&M.

Super SEC East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia

Super SEC West: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M

Lash,

Since the SEC is so strong in football, it's not like they really benefit from adding strong football schools in markets they already have (like the ACC did with VA Tech).

So if you're the SEC, I THINK you look at new markets, not ones you are already in. For instance, the current SEC 12 COULD expand to 16 with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. It seems more likely than seeing top academic and ACC founding members UNC, UVA and Clemson leave that conference.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Also, I don't have the info to post, but i would imagine it would be tough for the SEc to oust a member of members. The lawsuits would be crazy.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Why do everyone assume law suites will prevent conference expansion? The ACC got a mere slap on the hand and agreed to schedule a few OOC games. Temple was kicked out the Big East without any issues. Conference expansion occurs in basketball as well with out any issues. There is no difference between football and basketball schools when it comes to legal issues.

If the SEC wanted to expel a couple of teams it would not be a fear of law suite that would prevent this from happening. It would have to be something such as the involvement of the state of Virginia that would keep a team such a Mississippi State from being kicked out. Then again, maybe a super conference may tell both Mississippi schools to take a hike.

There is a difference in being a full member and an affiliate member like Temple football was and still is in the MAC. They are not a voting member and don't have the rights of a full member. Just like any affiliate lacrosse, baseball member, etc...

He's saying you can't kick out Miss St. without major cause like UTPA in the Sun Belt in 1998 and Chicago St. in the Summit a few years ago. He's not talking about preventing expansion.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
'08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS

Lash, FSA covered most of my response.

Temple was not a voting member since they were only an affiliate.

As for football members not having any different voting rights than basketball members, that's not true. The "Big East" lawsuit was by the football members, not the conference of basketball and football members. In fact, the plaintiff names on the lawsuit were changed when VPI was added to the ACc expansion plans, same with BC. So you had schools on the original lawsuit that were taken off once they decided to leave. It's likely a reason why the lawsuit had so little merit: you had schools suing as plaintiff only to take themselves off to become a defendant.

As for the SEC, my question was wanting to know if anyone knew the rules for conference changes. Would it take a majority vote? Usually expelling a school requires a unanimous vote. In which case, it's unlikely that there would ever be a 12-0 vote. Using your Miss St. example...there is zero chance the state allows Mississippi to vote against mississippi St.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Column out of Alabama paper discussing the probablity that the SEC will sit out this round of conference expansion unless lightning strikes and they get a shot at Texas.Link at http://www.therandolphleader.com/articl ... 5-cook.txt

Makes sense from an SEC perspecdtive...although if multiple conference moves caused the Big 12 to collapse, it night consider taking in Oklahoma and Okie State if the price was right.

Mississippi State is staying put. So is Ole Miss. So is Vandy. So are the rest in the SEC. In any conference situation, some schools are going to be bigger than others with larger budgets.

Unless a school is sanctioned repeatedly for cheating, has empty stadiums and can't resolve it, exhibits poor management, fails repeatedly to comply with agreed upon goals, there are not grounds to be kicking out schools. Such would be a very ugly precedent.

A conference deciding to be "all sports" is another matter. Still, most situations this is done with time and grace. If a school cannot keep up, such as Davidson dropping Southern Conference fb, or later VMI leaving completely, it's the affected school that makes the decision usually. The Temple situation with the BE was unique. Some schools have actually decided to drop fb for budget/poor attendance reasons before even exiting a given conference.

While parity is naturally suggested for proposed super conferences; parity is what is often complained about. With parity also comes no one consistently dominating, thus claims of weakness.

The ACC has had considerable parity since expanding. Their fb (& bb) games are often close and thrillers. But when they knock each other off, some fans will say it's weakness. Polls reflect it. So, for example, when Miami and/or FSU gets to 11-1 again, and Duke and/or Wake get back to 1-11 again, some will say "what a banner year the ACC is having!"

You're right, Sec03. There is no need for either the SEC or ACC to move right now. No conference has demonstrated that a number greater than 12 works for FB. Expect the Big 10 to add one, the Pac 10 probably 2, and the other conferences to refill as needed. That will be it in this round.