The SEC and Big 12 are set and fine as they are.

MSUDawg, I'm still not convinced that something won't happen over at Vanderbilt. They definitely deserve to be closely watched for awhile. I don't think Arkansas will leave as everyone else on here has surmised, but I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention paid to Vanderbilt.

The best thing Virginia Tech could do for themselves right now is hope like crazy that Vandy decides to go the way of Tulane and drop down to I-AA. That would then open up a spot for the Hokies to move to.

MSU doesn't draw a whole lot of fans. You have one of the smallest stadiums in the SEC right now. Compared to my team, UGa, you are a shrimp!! Ole Miss reminds me of UNC football. They're a little more into football than basketball over at Oxford, but it's a close call.
BTW, Nole fan doesn't like Auburn too much at all, and I know that because both he and I have been on this forum for awhile now.

Disagree! You guys keep smashing the smaller campuses, and arguing/discussing an issue a long time on the internet does not make you right. Moving to mega conferences, like the Texas wish mentioned, is only further diminishing the "collegiate" atmosphere. Also, Vanderbilt is staying, and they deserve to, and they play by the rules, unlike your Dawgs and mine.
By the way, yes I am an MSU alumn, but also am a graduate of another dawg team----located in Athens, GA.

OK D&D, I will not be brash this time (lol). Let's deal with the State of Mississippi. Yes, you are right in that MSU's stadium is smaller by much of the SEC standards. Scott Field, was recently expanded to 52,000; still smaller than the 80,000 plus of UGA. Scott Field was one time considered one of the outstanding stadiums, not because of the seating capacity, but due to its undeground irrigation system. Like UGA, it is right on campus. Ole Miss expanded to 60,000 capacity recently as well. Southern Miss stadium is even smaller than the other two, though upgraded as well.
True, MSU does not have the yester-year glory days of Archie Manning and coach Johnny Vaught. However, MSU is the largest University in Mississippi, slightly bigger than USM, and both larger than Ole Miss. (All Mississippi universities are under 18,000 or so students; but that is reaonable for the dymanics of the State). State is land grant, with programs in agriculture, engineering, education, etc. (much like Auburn, Clemson, TA&M, Purdue--though not as lofty, etc.)
Ole Miss is the notable liberal arts institution, and has the medical and legal professional schools. With the state legislature full of lawyers, guess who has edge in influence?
Southern Miss scares both! They are growing, and located in the somewhat more cosmopolitan section of the state. They have had a very progressive President.
Though the public schools (K-12) are dismal, as with much of elsewhere, the State of Mississippi does have a decent model of higher education, considering their resources, and has better undergraduate academic programs than what their public image suggests.
Mississippi State does not have the oppportunities and ease that exist at places like UGA. The campus is in a rural location, nearly borders the State of Alabama, and 'Bama is just down the road. While Mississippi has some prime indiviuals to recruit, their numbers are not excessive (unlike Florida). They have to recruit against Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, So. Miss, Memphis, LSU and others, in a very narrow base. While they have struggled in football, their men's and women's basketball have been excellent recently, and their baseball program is solid, year after year. MSU is not going to be a sustained power in football, but every four or five years, they will come up with competitive teams that may hang in there for a year or two.
I would not like to see the SEC add Texas or A&M unless there was room. Same with Va Tech (and it would be strategically nice to have them). If Vandy, or MSU, or Arkansas, or South Carolina, left; I would hope it would be by the school's choice; unlike the Temple situation. Stability is important, and schools should not function as if they are about to get booted by their peers; that only encourages cheating and lowering academic standards more. Where would So. Car, MSU, Vandy go? Create another Metro conference? All this to have the longhorns and a fat name?
Each of us could take powers, in or near SEC territory, and boot members and add others to make a more aggressive football league (other than Texas/A&M schools, Miami, FSU, Va Tech---even Southern Miss---could beat much of the SEC frequently). However, there is merit in geographic tightness, neighborhood rivalries,
some interconference overlap, etc.
If the mega conference initiatives are not in perspective, where does it stop? Just go ahead and have a super conference of Notre Dame, Southern Cal, Miami, Oklahoma, Michigan,.....and so forth. Yet, there would be constant debate about booting and adding members of this.

Absolutely! An athletic conference should be based on factors than greed alone!

Leave the Mexican States (of Texas) in the the southern portion of the Big 12.

The SEC can not kick Vandy out because they are indeed an original member of the SEC. However, Vandy may opt to leave the SEC, and that's very possible, believe it or not. Tulane is a private school in New Orleans that has a lot in common with Vanderbilt. Academic standards about the same, academic focus is very similar, both are located in metropolitan areas, both have problems getting good athletes in football, etc. What you probably don't know about Tulane is that Tulane is also an original SEC member. I think they left the SEC back in the '60s, just after Georgia Tech's departure (GT is another original SEC member). Tulane's reasoning for dropping out was that they felt like they just couldn't compete anymore. And Tulane used to be an SEC powerhouse just like Vanderbilt was years and years ago (think Depression era football). And once again, Tulane is at a crossroads: the president of Tulane has requested a study be done the feasibility of the current athletic department with a special emphasis on the feasibility of Div IA football. There have been two proposals so far on football:
1.) do away with the sport entirely;
2.) move down a level (i.e. I-AA)
Tulane's president said the whole reasoning for this is because he feels that students are coming to Tulane for academic reasons, not for athletic reasons. And what is Vanderbilt more known for? academics. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw a similar parallel for Vandy.
MSU will probably stay because of tradition, but I do wish MSU would start thinking and building bigger. A 60,000 seat stadium would be a nice start, IMO. As for political funding, State needs to get its grads into influential positions of the Mississippi legislature, and start getting some funds going over to State instead of Ole Miss all the time. BTW, I really have had respect for State up until Sherrill started really stinking up the joint and the NCAA started looking at putting MSU on probation. It's one thing to put a competitive program on probation, but a program like Mississippi State could be hurting for awhile if they got hit with probation. Look no further than the effects of probation at Ole Miss a few years ago.

MSUDawg,

Sorry for the delay--Tuberville was smart backing out of the FSU games. A gamble, but it looks like he made the right call (unlike that fake punt last eyar at UF...what the hell was that????). It'll be Auburn and LSU battling for best in the SEC this year (probably). Fortunate for UT, UGA, and UIF that the East is down this year. Someone will have a much easier road to travel to the title game. Until the ring scandal (not sure how big it really is) I figured UGA was a shoe in. They still have the best coaching and more leadership and experience than UF. UT has more talent, but the coaching (I know I have a problem with Fulmer's staff) is pretty weak (except at rb....my God have they produced NFL backs) and the morale is low lately. If they stay totally healthy that could change. Anyway, I still say Auburn is odds on to be SEC champs this year.

No knock on Miss State, for a school their size (it's not like there aren't ACC schools just as small) they have done unbelieveably well in what is probably the best conference year in and year out (though they certainly weren't the best last year, injuries played a huge part in the UT and LSU decline, but some on, getting pastyed by Maryland? Yikes).

I don't think SEC expansion to include Texas teams will be good for college ball as a whole, but I think it would make the SEC arguably tops in both sports (certainly in football).

I do think the SEC West has some logic to it, but the teams in the West are also teams Alabama has historically dominated. The toughest teams talent-wise were conveniently in the other conferences. Maybe it makes the most sense after all, since the SEC delivered great UT/UF games year after year, but what the heck is UK doing in the East? Why isn't Tennessee in the west? At least geographically, that's doable. Probably those schools had enough clout that they didn't want to take the bus to Mississippi. Not a big game for them like it is for Bama, granted. But some on, apart from Jeckie getting Miss St. in high gear, those schools were flatlining. The conference was tailor made for the Bama/Auburn game to decide who would go to the championship game fromt he west. Alabama was like 100-0 vs. LSU at that point, and LSU was dreadful. Similar dominance over Ole Miss. Miss St. wasn't succesful at the time. Arkansas was the most competitive team in football besides the Alabama two, and they weren't much. If FSU gets lit up for going into the ACC, Bama and Auburn ought to be lit up for having the west set up for them. I realize that of all the feature teams in the SEC, they are the only two who care about games against teams in the West, so geographically its not that unusual, but its awfully conventient. UGA, UT, and UF get to beat each other up in their conference, while the West, at least in theory, will be decided by the Iron Bowl. Probably a wise move for the SEC actually, but it's still unbelievably Bama friendly. And I have to be suspicious anyway, since Bama yanked FSU off their schedule years ago after we tied them (I think Petersen was coaching us then). Plus the Bear hand picked his bowl opponents for years. "Forget about UGA, FSU, or Oklahoma (all in the top 5), let's play #12 Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl and split the championship with Ohio State...."

All that said, the West has done a hell of a job catching up, and I don't think it turned out the way the SEC planned. Unfortunate though, because I don't want to see another title game snoozer like last year.

PS: If the SEC does pull the texas teams (and maybe Oklahoma) into the west, and puts the Bama teams in the east, it's worth flushing out Vandy, Miss St., and USC from a pure money standpoint. They'd have a tv deal that woudl be beyond belief. And the title game could go back and forth between the Cotton Bowl and Atlanta. Ratings out the whazoo. And the regular season...wow. The SEC West would be all rivalry games for teams with a large following, and the smallest (I'm guessing that would be Ole Miss) would fit right in. The East would be off the charts, with UF/Bama, Bama/Uga every single year added to the east schedule.

As long as we're all holding this discussion in perspective...

I would not be surprised to see Vandy open to a move, but to drop their FB program may not be as financially viable as put out. Face it, just by fielding a team they get their full conference share of SEC money. Even as the conference door mat, they're still in one of the best 2 conferences for the sport. I'd have to think their financially better as is rather than dropping down to the likes of App St., Chattanooga and Furman. If they do move as part of any grand redesign over the next few years, I'd bet they'll look lateral (ACC, CUSA) before thinking I-AA.

And while the SEC may consider expansion/ reconfiguration as part of all this hoopla, I don't know that any of those Big 12 schools would do the switch. Just one Texas school wouldn't go, most others seem like more travel/scheduling oddities. And I don't think the TV contract could get too much bigger.

This rush to 12-school conferences is one thing, pushing it further into FB super-conferences is another. Remember folks, the popularity of the college game is driven by these discussions, the limited schedule that makes each game so important and makes the bowl games what they are. Plus, for each small team pushed out in a realignment, some other decent team becomes the new door-mat: Somebody has to lose in order for others to win. Sure, having Texas and A&M in the SEC is great, until your previously perennial contending school becomes the next Vandy!"

A number of sports publications have Tulane's recruiting class ranked first in Conference USA this year. They are coming off a bowl victory in Hawaii.
Looking up MSU, they had a decent haul by SEC standards, most having them somewhere in the middle.
They have new offensive and defensive coordinators (if that helps); but like their SEC brethern UK, Bama, and who knows who else, may get the probation thing again. Sherrill will need to show an up-swing, and soon.

I've been thinking about the viability of this idea for awhile and I think it would be to Vandy's and the SEC's mutual benefit. Vanderbilt football would compete in a I-AA conference, while the rest of Vanderbilt's sports would stay in the SEC. Vandy gets to compete for a title in just about every sport this way, and the SEC gets to add Virginia Tech, a strong football power, to replace them for football. I can see Vanderbilt maybe considering this idea. The Big East, CUSA, and the Sunbelt have this arrangement, although the basketball schools have too much power in the Big East and CUSA.


Umm, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I think that rather than a contending school become the next Vandy, you would probably get a conference with a lot of parity in it, like the Pac 10. The Pac 10 really has no permanent doormats. Every school in the league can realistically expect to win the league at some point in time. Not so in the current SEC. Adding Virginia Tech would bring this parity to the SEC, IMO.

DawgNDuckFan,

We'll trust the AD's at Vandy to know what level of sport is best for their school. Although if they are amenable to moving I'd have no problem helping you coordinate a switch to the ACC while you go after VT!

Re: SEC reconfiguration with Big 12 schools. There may be levels of parity, but it'd be tough on some schools, a la Nebraska. If VT comes over to the SEC east, either them, UGA, Tenn, Fla or SC is not going bowling, possibly two of them! Or imagine an SEC west scenario with Texas, A&M, LSU, Auburn and Alabama. Seems like neither Mississippi school could survive that division. I think it may not result in parity, but cycles of dominance. Not a bad thing, in fact we have that now in most cases. The question is how many programs are now dependent on success that they would truly suffer from playing that competitive a schedule? Plus, I think this dispersal of powerhouses allows for quality inter-conference match-ups, where as mega-conferences would mean non-conference games with So. Illinois just to pad the records.

By the way, how did you become a Dawg AND Duck fan?

I know your post was not meant to be a slam against Arkansas, but we are right in there with the big boys of the west - no, we are not Alabama or Texas in football but have been competitive, and have won the SEC west twice since joining the league - when we were in the SWC, we had a significant advantage in wins over A&M - when it comes to basketball and track, we owned A&M and Texas - (baseball we were competitive, but Texas was much better) - anyway, we have been even Steven pretty much with LSU and Auburn as well over all, with us kicking tail much of the time and them occasionally - we deserve every bit as much attention as those two, and much more than A&M - thank you very much - Arkansan

I believe the SEC went after Arkansas before Texas/A&M was even seriously pondered. It makes no sense to suggest Arkansas move to the Big 12 to accommodate someone else in the SEC. They are on the west flank of the SEC, and that is far enough.
Ohhh the Dallas market? Why not just go further west to Los Angeles, UCLA or So. Cal would be nice. All impratical and landscape nonsense!
People are offering scenarios based on 1970's glory days, recent W/L records, large popluation centers, etc.
The person who mentioned that whatever a new configuration may be, the teams on the softer side of that configuration will be the focus of calls for booting. Sure there are going to be smaller schools in the neighborhood, but it is fundamentally appropriate they play in their neighborhood, within reason, provided there are the elements for basic competiveness. And things change: A Kansas State, an Oregon State, an Iowa State can be on the up-swing. A Nebraska, an Alabama, a Kansas (a long one) can have a down-swing. Look at Southern Methodist's history! Things can change, and not always for the better. Look at Marshall, rebounding from a devastating and tragic plane crash a couple of decades ago. How about Fresno State?
I am well aware Tulane and GT were in the SEC dating back to the early 60s. That's 40 plus years ago. I also know the orginal members of the "Southern Conference"; look up who were members!
Conferences, for the most part, have components other than football. As a faculty person, I am glad some places they have a role, albeit a minor one. Usually, it is a desire to keep things in perspective. Travel is an issue, and when students are missing two days of classes to go 600 miles to a conference track meet is a concern. The SEC is broad enough.