starting a new thread here that me and sportsgeog started.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Texas A&M and LSU is almost as big as UT and A&M. Texas A&M and Alabama would be big especially since Coach fran is there. As for Texas and Alabama, Alabama has never beat Texas.

Watered down earnings this would be the biggest tv deal in history if UT and A&M came into the SEC.

The Big 10 and ACC did not want to destroy the Big East. Because it could have destroyed the BCS. The Big East has great Basketball thats why the didn't expand beyond 12, plus the ACC didn't have the votes and The Big 10 only wants Notre Dame.

WAC did not survive because it killed off the more important
rivalry's.

As for 14 teams to me its perfect. That way a championship game would be played by teams that didn't play in the regular season. Plus there would be more excitement for championship games.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

I don't see A & M and LSU as big as rivals as UT and A & M. They don't play each other every year. That's like Missouri/Illinois, which doesn't necessarily mean Mizzou should be in the Big 10, as the rest of its rivalries are KU, NU, OU and KSU. A & M not only has UT, but the TTU rivalry has heated up recently, as well as OU and OSU.

I don't see a coach having to do with creating a rivalry. He was at Alabama for such a brief time and if that's the case, U New Mexico and TCU should be huge rivals with A & M.

If its simply just a case of Arkansas, which is the only pure rival of the whole SEC, and as you say LSU, and since you promote 14 teams as being perfect, which I still don't agree unless you create a 13-game schedule, which will never happen, then here's the simple solution to unite UT and A & M with all its rivals:

U of Arkansas and LSU join the Big 12 to become the Big 14 (or XIV). There, all of the potential rivals we are talking about here would be in with Texas. All said and done.

Again, if 14 was the ideal, when the SEC was established in the very early 1990's, they would have invited 4, and not just 2, and perhaps if they really wanted UT and A & M in the first place, they would have invited them back then, way before the Big 12 even formed. They didn't then, 14 is not the ideal, as there isn't enough room in the schedule to make such a big conference meaningful. If it is only 11 game schedule and only 8 conference games, that means 6 games are divisional and 2 of the other 7 are played in 2 year rotations. That means some teams wouldn't play each other for 4 to 6 years. If you separated Alabama from Auburn into 2 divisions, this means they would play each other twice out of 6 years. So you're willing to break up present day rivalries just to bring in UT and A & M which really only have 1 rival presently in the whole of SEC?

UT and A & M are in the right conference. Anything separating them from TTU and OU and OSU just does not make sense. If they really want Arkansas, and LSU, then they would ask them to join the Big 12, if indeed 14 is the ideal, which it is not. Its not worth making interdivisional and intra-conference play meaningless just to get two teams that may have not played each other in the regular season. People recognize that as a weakness of a conference championship game, but is it that much of a problem and the solution is to add two more teams that have only very marginal relationships with 1 or 2, as you say, teams and make conference play meaningless by not having other traditional rivalries play each other? The playing a team for a second time in the conference championship is a weaknesses, but fixing it by adding two additional teams only adds more problems by solving that problem and in the end it doesn't totally solve it as there still is the potential of having two teams that already played each other. Unless you are thinking like the old MLB where the two division teams don't play each other except in the conference championship game, then you are really suffocating traditional rivals playing each other by going to 14 teams and not having inter-divisional play.

UT and A & M are in the right place and they are thriving in the Big 12, so why would they leave? They wouldn't.

Why? $$$$.

If CU and Missouri leave, I expect UT and A&M would leave because the Big 12 would be too far behind in $.

The Big 12 is the best place for Texas and A&M and 12 is the right number. But the SEC might consider expanding for Texas and A&M. But I don't think 14 works. It would have to be 16 so Alabama and Auburn could move to the east. Arkansas would have no problem with 4 new schools. LSU probably would be ok. Mississippi and Mississippi St. would just have to take it. The SEC West would then be UM, MSU, LSU, UA, UT, TAMU along with OU and TT or Ok. St.

And if that happened, then the Big 10 may want to get to 16, which then would create the most pure Midwest League, as they would also take Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas and Kansas State. Only Kansas State would be a little off in the Big 10's academic standard. The entire Big 10 are members of the AAU. Nebraska, Iowa State, Missouri, and Kansas are also members of the AAU.

What you are talking about is not feasible with an 11-game schedule. Its not even feasible with a 12-game schedule. If this would happen, what we are looking at is a 4 - 16 team super conferences, with the Pac-10 and MWC conference members with CU, as is outlined here, merging, and the ACC merging with 4 of the 8 Big East members.

When you get to 4 - 16 super conferences, why wouldn't you just go to 8 - 8 - team conferences? The tradition of these conferences as well as a 11 and/or a 12 game schedule do not make this feasible.

Also, if 14 or 16 is the most desireable and the first conference that determines this would be the one to act first. Who's to say that the Big 12 wouldn't go for U Arkansas and LSU as well as Colorado State and BYU or Air Force to form a 16-team league first?

Or if the ACC wouldn't go after UFlorida, U South Carolina, U Georgia, and U Kentucky? There's lots of scenarios out there. Not just UT and A & M going to the SEC.

14 and 16 team league don't work, ala the embarassingly attempt and dismantling of the WAC-16. Thus, 12 teams make sense and none of the BCS conferences are attempting anything beyond 12, because the schedule doesn't allow it.

Actually a coach does have something to do with creating a rivalry, believe it or not. Waaay back in the early days of the SEC and the ACC, Georgia Tech hired a guy by the name of John Heisman (he of Heisman Trophy fame) to coach the football team. Previously, Heisman coached at Clemson and was well liked by his team. While GT went on to win some SEC titles and go to big bowls, Clemson lagged behind. I think this is what started the GT-Clemson rivalry, although I could be mistaken. Heisman also used to coach at Auburn, and for awhile, Clemson and Auburn had a rivalry. Notice a trend? And although this is a rumor, it does have to do with this thread: a Missouri fan on an AOL internet chat told me the main reason Mizzou hasn't played Arkansas OOC is that there is still some bitter feelings towards Arkansas for stealing Frank Broyles, who they claim used to coach at Mizzou.
And yes, TCU does hate A&M very much, but A&M won't play TCU. No way to tell if there is a rivalry or not. Same with New Mexico, although there was a rivalry between New Mexico and TCU over Coach Fran.

And if that is the case, it would be Alabama's rivalry, not necessarily A & M's, thus, how would that be an incentive for A & M to join the SEC? To me it isn't something compelling them, its more likely to be Alabama, which is already in the SEC, unless Alabama is looking into leaving the SEC to join the Big 12.

A number of series are in a situation where one team thinks the other team is a rival and the other team doesn't. Colorado/Nebraska for a long time was this way. Michigan State and U of Michigan is somewhat this way. Michigan originally didn't want MSU in the Big 10. They see Ohio State and Norte Dame as more of their rivals.

Well first of all when the SEC expanded in 1990 Texas, Texas A&M, Miami FL and Florida State was all invited. So there is still some chance they could.

16 Team SEC would be too big or not it could work with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. If that was the case this would be lots and lots of $$$$$$$$$.

As for Texas A&M and LSU they have played more times than Alabama has played A&M I think its 60 times LSU and Texas A&M have played.

Not only is it Alabama's rivalry its also A&M too since we stole the Greatest Coach ever from them ;).

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

If they are truly rivals, then A & M would have joined back in the early 90's.

16 is too big, so is 14. You still haven't explained how 14 could work, without diluting the conference, and possibly leading to its breakup. It may somewhat lessen the probability that two teams end up in the Conference Championship game, and it doesn't solve that problem, it just reduces the chances. What it does do is reduce the amount of times that either possible existing rivals and teams that have long-time existing series, it reduces the frequency of those rivals and long-time series, all to just add two teams that have only one rival and very marginal relationships with all the other 11 members. It dilutes the conference, its not feasible, no one is doing it now, other than the MAC but they are in a different situation. You can't do it with only 11 or 12 games. You need at least 13 maybe even 14 games to do this. Explain your 14-team model and how it can work without dilluting current rivalries and current long-term series.

You would be suffocating rivals and long-time series just to add two teams. There are many more disadvantages than to the very small amount advantages to this proposal.

The longer that the Texas schools are in the Big 12, the longer their series relationship continue. Some of these relationships run really deep with both of these Texas schools. Even OSU has some early history with the original SWC membership. Texas is more like Oklahoma and Missouri as a southern state, than South Carolina and Georgia. Its also a lot more like Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado as a Great Plains state, in addition to Oklahoma which I already mentioned. There are no Great Plains states in the SEC. Austin politically is liberal. Probably only Gainesville and Athens are the only SEC cities like it politically. The Big 12 has Boulder, Columbia, and Lawrence as more liberal strongholds. Those college towns all have music scenes and/or are Big 10ish/Pac 10ish liberal in nature. Lincoln also has a strong music scene. The SEC only really offers Athens for this, and maybe Columbia, SC.

The Texas schools are in the right conference. If they really wanted to be in the SEC, they would have followed their SWC brother of Arkansas and did it in the early 90's. Their most rivals are in the Big 12.

So Nebraska and Minnesota have played numerous times, as I have mentioned, even more than NU/OSU series. That doesn't mean they should necessarily be in the same conference on that alone.

The model for 14 teams would be play each team in that division and 1 team in the other division. Who in their right mind would not want to watch Oklahoma vs Georgia, Oklahoma vs Florida, Texas vs Florida in a championship game. Texas vs Alabama, Texas vs Arkansas, Texas A&M vs Alabama, and so on each year.

The Texas Schools didn't leave for the SEC because of the corruption going on then and the SEC didn't need it buts its irony since SEC schools have been in trouble lately. Plus Frank Broyles didn't want Texas and Texas A&M at that the time but now "jerry jones and barry switzer" want both Texas and Oklahoma to play in the SEC what is their motive who knows.

But you are right for 14 schools to play in a conference 13 games is needed to play. Because if Auburn moved east, Alabama would have to play them every year and not rotate with 1 other school. Unless you play only 2 OOC games.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Yes because I would love to see Nebraska, Iowa State and Notre Dame in the Big 10 that would be one helluva conference.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Iowa State has no business in the Big 10.

Was that when Barry Switzer was the Dallas Cowboys' Head Coach? If so, I'd say there might be some of Barry acting as Jerry Jones' sycophant. If this more recently, then maybe not. I think Jerry Jones' as well as Barry Switzer are both allums of the University of Arkansas.

^So, thus, it isn't a feasible thing to go beyond 12 teams really. When you get down to only playing only 1 of the 7 teams outside your division -- that is teams that may have had a long-time series or even a rivalry like Alabama/Tennessee, then you really lose the meaning of the conference. If it does move to more than 12, I think it would be 16 more than 14, and we would be moving towards a 4 superconferences being comprised of 16 teams each and with two 8 team divisions. But as long as there is only 11 or 12 regular season games, anything beyond 12 isn't feasible.