One way to diminish college football and other college sports is to design conferences based on less-than-amateur levels of NFL and NBA type configurations.
Alabama wants to play Mississippi State, and vice versa. Worrying about the populations of Texas and Mississippi in this regard is a bit of nonsense when more valued factors are firmly in place.

SEC expansion is off the table once you see how much money they are making under the new TV contract. Not that it was 'on the table' but this contract will probably silence any notion of expansion from just about everyone.

Word.

Or, for those of you who don't speak silly, schools would lose too much money by expanding. That was probably true anyway, but now, ixnay on the pansionexay.

With the new SEC television package, I don't see how expansion is off the table. How can any of the other conferences stand pat with the deal the SEC has and the Big 10 with it's conference network? Vandy & Miss St will be making more than Notre Dame with it's own tv contract. Imagine that. Please don't think that any of the SEC lower tier teams will be leaving anytime soon. The other conferences have to have better matchups. Nebraska should be playing Oklahoma every year, the Big 10 needs to add someone who can compete with Michigan & Ohio St, the ACC & Big East football schools should have merged. Talk about a tv contract possibility. Maybe the Big 12 should go after the Ariz. & Utah schools, or the Big 10 goes after Missouri, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St & Nebraska a true midwestern conference. Conference makeups & matchups will determine where the big bucks will go. Every conference has it's alpha dogs but you need more than two or three.

The 'everyone' comment in my post was directed at folks who will still suggest that the SEC WILL expand. It is my contention that the SEC will NOT and probably about 99.99999% of the folks would agree with that.

It was not to suggest that other conferences will NOT expand. I agree with your premise that the other conferences will look at ways to increase their revenue streams. I disagree with you about the Big 10 expanding simply because they are almost making the same money as the SEC. The article in the other part of this site mentions that. If the BTN continues to expand, then the Big 10 will make MORE revenue from TV than the SEC.

The other conferences are going to wait and see what happens with the Big 10 network. As it continues to make deals, other conferences will take notice.

One other thing, other conference will only expand if it makes financial 'cents'. That means going into markets with lots of population with only one team that garners state wide support - or at least will allow the conference to put their TV network onto cable systems.

The SEC will not drop any schools. They will only expand if the Big 10 or ACC go to Super Conferences by cherry picking the Big EAST, with ND. Examples

The ACC expands to 16 by adding W VA, Syracuse, Rutgers, & Pitt or

The Big 10 expands to 14 by adding ND, Rutgers, & Pitt.

I would think the Big 10 does not expand beyond 12 with the addition of ND. If they need to grow their market for their network channel more eastern teams would probably be considered. Maybe even raiding the ACC of Boston Col., for ND, or the Big East of Pitts. for Penn St.

The ACC with FSU and Miami down, and the performace of the other conference members against other BCS schools looks like a conference ripe for the picking. It is possible they are weaker than the Big East & Conference USA. I would put USF, and E Car. up against any team in the ACC. ESPN reguarly makes fun of this conference.

As an SEC fan I would love to add Ga Tech, Clemson, Miami, & FSU. All four of these schools have a long history playing SEC schools.

I would think that there would be a larger tv contract for super conferences than these individual contracts per conference. For instance I think the Big 12 & SEC together could create a better tv package deal if that included intersectional games, or the conferences that want a playoff creating their on championship game playoffs. If the Big 12, SEC, ACC ,as well as the MWC. CUSA WAC, & Big East decided to do this, it would only be a matter of time before the Big 10 & PAC 10 wanted a piece of that enormous pie. If they did this there might not be a need for all this expansion talk.

Savage...

First off, yes, the SEC will not drop schools. If MOST of the schools see value in leaving, they might form a new conference. Thing is, I tend to think you're right... Alabama fans want the easy trips to Mississippi (travel-wise... AND sometimes play-wise). I don't think my scenario is that realistic... but depending on the economic forces at work, it is slightly possible.

As for expansion... let's play a game here. You're the president at Mississippi State. Someone suggests the expansion you suggest.

Given that you're now getting $12.5 million a year from CBS, you and the other presidents call them up. "Hey, we want to add four good schools. How much will you bump up the contract?"

"Who?"

"Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, and Miami."

"Wait a minute. Four schools that WERE great at one time or another. All of which are in markets you already cover. Why would you do that?"

"We'd OWN college football."

"No you wouldn't. We'd give you another half a billion for the increased value, and that's being generous. No more."

$2.25 billion divided by (12 schools x 15 years = 180)= $12.5 million per year.

$2.75 billion divided by (16 schools x 15 years = 240)= $11.46 million per year.

Would you like to go back to your state's taxpayers and tell them you just kicked away $1 million per year because you thought the SEC would PWN the nation, when it looks like they already do? Congratulations on your forced retirement.

The SEC does not need to expand. Football is 12 games regular season and for most, 8 is the norm for in-conference games. Being in the same conference implies playing all within a several year rotation inclusive of in-division school that are played each year. Continuity is important.

An all-sports conference is not just fb or even just fb and bb. If it was, then all kinds of configurations could be designed whereby region and travel are not such a worry. There are the Olympic-style sports, and class-time concerns.

The SEC is not broke, and does not need fixed.

I never said the SEC would own college football. But since you brought it up, why do you think the SEC got the tv package they got? Matchups better games every week. LSU vs Auburn or say Iowa vs Michigan, how about Georgia vs Tenn or Maryland vs Virginia, who would you rather watch as a true college football fan? I could go on and on and yes I do like watching the old classic matchups in each of the conferences. There are just more and better matchups each week in the SEC and adding quality teams like Ga Tech, Clemson, FSU, and Miami would only enhance this conference. You mean to say four of the more prominent teams from the ACC would not warrant a much larger contract. I think you lowballed the impact these teams would have on the contract. Three of the ACC teams regularly play their in state rival and these games would then have meaning within the conference. Matchups in college football are what it is all about. As a season ticket holder, I always hated that IAA matchup or the small independent and I usually gave my tickets away. Expansion ended rivalries like Ga vs Clemson, Auburn vs Ga Tech, FSU vs LSU, and more games ended as well.
I would be loved by the old guard who remember how great some of those old rivalries were, and appreciated for bringing them back. The entensity would only magnify the differences there are from conference to conference. Like I said the SEC will do nothing unless the other conferences go to super conferences and then they will do whatever they have to do to be the best conference in the nation. Bank on it.

I did not lowball.

Georgia Tech is in territory Georgia OWNS. Additionally, they're the weakest link here. Added value: ZERO.

Clemson is in territory they think they own, but South Carolina stole all the attention. Added value... maybe 5% of that $500 million.

Miami has lost its lustre from their championship years. The oddball thing is that their national reputation is probably better than their local reputation. They usually do not sell games out at home. Added value: 40% of that $500 million.

Florida State has also lost some cache, especially the last 2-3 years. Still, they share Florida with UF. Added value: 55%.

Another thing- if you stuff more schools in an already strong conference, you dilute the product. Someone with 2 losses is more likely to end up with 3. It takes more schools OUT of the national championship picture than would otherwise be in it.

Lowball, lowball, lowball!!!!!!!!
First off, if the other conferences merge or super conferences are created, then the addition of those 4 teams would not dilute the league only enhance it. Your argument has no weight.
All the conferences that expanded would be in the same situation. Regardless three of the teams play there state rival every year anyway. I guess I would rather have a strong conference with compelling matchups more than the one and two team dominated conferences throughout the rest of the country. Who in the midwest or east added to the Big 10 dramatically alter the power structure in that conference? Notre Dame, Syracuse, Rutgers Pitt , it would still be Michigan & Ohio St. Who in the PAC 10 could be added to alter that conferences pecking order? Only if you added Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, & Nebraska.

Miami will not have to worry about selling out games with an SEC schedule. Clemson owns South Carolina and plays many of the SEC schools in other sports. Ga Tech regrets to this day getting out of the SEC and really miss their rivalry games with Auburn, Tennessee, S Car.
and Alabama. FSU is a national program. Besides the way it is now, the SEC, ACC, & Big 12 are disadvantaged by playing a championship game. I don't see good competition among quality teams as a bad thing.

There are certain schools people can make arguments for concerning multiple conferences. Obviously, a school like Clemson has the fans, revenue support, known name, location, etc. to be in the SEC or another.

In a way, Clemson, FSU, and GT being in the ACC, but located in a region with SEC predominance, only adds to the rivalry intensities. Not only are their battles between some in-state rivals, it is also gets to be a battle between conferences for many fans. The key is having those OOC games scheduled regularly.

South Carolina was once in the ACC; GA Tech was once in the SEC; not taking into account how history and tradition have unfolded is missing a key element.

I doubt the ACC and SEC will be changing anything anytime soon. The best bets for potential change come with the Big Ten who may add one; Notre Dame ultimately committing, and of course the Big East sorting out their hybrid design. Shifts in the west involving the MWC and WAC are plausible; even the PAC 10 could expand if the Big Ten does. C-USA could split and add or get raided again; and the MAC could lose one or add one. Army and Navy may just hang as independents..they seem to be able to survive at doing that. The Big 12 will continue to gel and may not make any near future changes either.

For some conferences, the issue is basically maintaining, keeping its members happy, and protecting its flanks. The SEC appears to do that well as does a few others.

SEC03

I agree with your recent post, but I read in other commentaries that the next wave of expansion was coming around 2011. I'm curious about the reason for expansion in 2011 and what is the rationale for thinking this? There are so many senarios out there and I just wanted to share some of mine.

Onto the current situation with interconference play. It seems most teams do well at home in interconference play and badly in away games. How do you explain Tenn vs UCLA, BYU vs Washington, UCLA vs BYU and Washington vs Oklahoma? It looks like the Big Ten & PAC 10 split games. The SEC stuggles in conference play, Ga vs SC and Aub vs Miss St. The Big East and ACC look down. The Big 12 looks strong and play entertaining offensive games.

According to Herbstreit we might as well hand the trophy to USC. Looking at who has played and where, I couldn't tell you who was #1. USC looked very strong against Ohio St, but is Ohio St a good test. I beleive LSU really put it on them in the BCS and they lost 2 games in the SEC last year. Penn St looks really good as well as Oklahoma & Missouri. Florida didn't look good against Miami and neither did Ga vs SC or Alabama vs W Kentucky. Some teams play their full package against everyone, some teams build on theirs as the season or opponent dictates. It is however getting to the point where you have to bring your A game every week, just ask Tenn, Ariz. St, and a few other surprised teams this year. Looks like another crazy year where parity dictates everywhere but at USC who has no one left on their schedule to challenge them. They will be in the BCS. Please I don't want to hear about Utah, Boise St., E Carolina, or S Fla being in this game. It will only be the Big 12 champion or the SEC champion in this game. My opinion it will be the Big 12 champion.

Savage,

You offered some good perspectives.

The 2011 date is primarily associated with the Big East Conference as to whether they will hang together as is, or split. How firm that is, and if something happens with the Big East, before or after, certainly garners some diverse opinions. After they re-organized and expanded after the ACC raid, 2011 popped up as the time the conference would re-address its structure. Some saw it as the approximate year of a definitive split, but if that is totally firm in writing, it has not been publicly declared. With TV agreements per bb and/or fb telecasts, current and near future, that imply extending beyond 2011, some suggest that is an indication a split may not be a sure thing. I tend to be believe the Big East Presidents have not decided or agreed to much of anything other than the status quo for now.

As to USC, indeed, they have an awesome team. However, we have seen before when the sports media have declared them something-like "the team of the century", and someone like Stanford, Oregon, or UCLA pulls the upset.

If one watched the Mississippi State--Auburn 3-2 game, just shows how perplexing these games can be. With UCLA beating Tennessee and then getting routed by BYU, questions do abound.

It is still a bit early in the season and most have not entered the conference center-meat of their schedules. That said, there are some off to a spectacular start such as Penn State....of course, Coastal Carolina, Oregon State, and Syracuse aren't exactly murderer's row either.

It should be further fun watching! I do enjoy seeing those that sometimes upset the applecart.

I think the SEC should schedule more out-of-conference games with the Big Ten. Right now there are a lot of SEC/ACC, Big 12/Pac 10, Pac 10/Big 10, Big East/ACC games. It would be especially cool to see some games later in the season; then we can see how SEC teams play in cold weather! As a Michigan student ticket holder, I would love it if we brought someone like Georgia or LSU to the Big House. Especially because we actually beat the only SEC team we played last year (Florida in the Capital One Bowl).

Matchups I'd like to see:

LSU @ Michigan (Les Miles returns to Ann Arbor)
Illinois @ Florida (Ron Zook returns to Gainesville)
Wisconsin @ Alabama (up-and-coming teams)
Auburn @ Penn State
Northwestern @ Vanderbilt (Battle of Private Schools)