5 Teams That Could Benefit UK with an SEC Expansion
- Thread starter KYtotheCore
- Start date
Expansion is all about money, and television sets . . . . with a 90% focus on football, as that's what the people watching T.V.'s watch predominately.
So, it is extremely likely that expansion will occur into a state/area outside of the current SEC footprint. North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma seem the most likely places, and North Carolina brings the most T.V.'s. When thinking about it, forget roundball, and remember that (for most counter-intuitively) football is the bigger cash cow even in states like North Carolina and Kentucky.
I have always believed that the choices break down as follows, both by profit and preference:
(1) North Carolina and either Duke or N.C. State.
(2) Virginia and Virginia Tech.
(3) Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
Of course, one can easily argue that we can split . . . . and get two states.
Maybe we can pull off another A @ M deal . . . . we don't need Texas U. to get access to Texas, as we have A @ M, and many Texas fans likely watch A @ M to see if they lose.
Perhaps, then we get North Carolina and Virginia Tech, adding two states and not having to deal with Duke/NC State and/or Virginia.
Two things are pretty darn certain at this point: (1) The SEC is the bull in the china shop . . . . if you ever hear that the schools being discussed have no interest in joining, don't believe the report. Most (I would suspect ALL) would give their eye teeth to get into the conference that is already the GOAT, and will simply become GOATIER.
(2) Schools from within a state that is already in the conference, are out. Why add a Texas, Louisville, Clemson or Florida State, when we already have the state's TV market. It will not be done.
In short, the rich will get richer, and we are very fortunate to be affiliated with the SEC.
So, it is extremely likely that expansion will occur into a state/area outside of the current SEC footprint. North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma seem the most likely places, and North Carolina brings the most T.V.'s. When thinking about it, forget roundball, and remember that (for most counter-intuitively) football is the bigger cash cow even in states like North Carolina and Kentucky.
I have always believed that the choices break down as follows, both by profit and preference:
(1) North Carolina and either Duke or N.C. State.
(2) Virginia and Virginia Tech.
(3) Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
Of course, one can easily argue that we can split . . . . and get two states.
Maybe we can pull off another A @ M deal . . . . we don't need Texas U. to get access to Texas, as we have A @ M, and many Texas fans likely watch A @ M to see if they lose.
Perhaps, then we get North Carolina and Virginia Tech, adding two states and not having to deal with Duke/NC State and/or Virginia.
Two things are pretty darn certain at this point: (1) The SEC is the bull in the china shop . . . . if you ever hear that the schools being discussed have no interest in joining, don't believe the report. Most (I would suspect ALL) would give their eye teeth to get into the conference that is already the GOAT, and will simply become GOATIER.
(2) Schools from within a state that is already in the conference, are out. Why add a Texas, Louisville, Clemson or Florida State, when we already have the state's TV market. It will not be done.
In short, the rich will get richer, and we are very fortunate to be affiliated with the SEC.
VT & NC State would be the best options as far as television markets and cultural fit.
Yes sir. Gonna post these two.
But if I could pick two, I'd go with VT and West Virginia. WVU is more of an SEC type school. Huge party school and really good at football and basketball. It wouldn't do much for the SEC tv market but they are a perfect fit.
VT would be a huge pickup for football and another big state for the TV market.
This is a pretty silly subject but I'll play. 
Conference expansion has always been dictated by what is good for the conference and not what is good for this school or that school. That almost always means money but lets ignore money for the moment and think exclusively about "what" (and "who") would be good for UK athletics. IMO, 2 things tower above other criteria:
#1 pretty much speaks for itself. To put that in perspective I have long referred to SC as "UK's football peer program". They joined the SEC as a team with a football history very much like UK (i.e., great fan support for a not so great program). But in the 25 years SC has been in the SEC UK has a 9-16 record and that, of course, includes UK's current 3 game win streak.
#1.a is necessary to simply add some quality to SEC basketball. UK has dominated SEC basketball unlike any team has ever dominated its' conference. UK will always be regarded as a premier basketball program but that comes only because of a few OOC games and NCAA play, not the 18-20 SEC games. Even if it meant a loss every now and then it would a good thing for UK (IMO) to actually have some legitimate (i.e., year in and year out) conference basketball competition.
So who fits the bill, that is, a school with a regularly beatable football team AND a regularly (very) strong basketball team?
Kansas and Duke are the teams that just stand out in my mind. NC would be third choice but the "football dominance" part would be far more suspect than with the other two.
And while not the point of the question, I have long believed UK would be a much better fit in the ACC than the SEC. To that point, 4 of the 5 teams named by the article author are ACC teams.
Peace
Conference expansion has always been dictated by what is good for the conference and not what is good for this school or that school. That almost always means money but lets ignore money for the moment and think exclusively about "what" (and "who") would be good for UK athletics. IMO, 2 things tower above other criteria:
#1. A football program that UK could "expect" to beat at least 50% of the time and more ideally 67% of the time
#1.a A truly top caliber basketball program. By that I mean an annual Top 10 kind of team.
#1.a A truly top caliber basketball program. By that I mean an annual Top 10 kind of team.
#1 pretty much speaks for itself. To put that in perspective I have long referred to SC as "UK's football peer program". They joined the SEC as a team with a football history very much like UK (i.e., great fan support for a not so great program). But in the 25 years SC has been in the SEC UK has a 9-16 record and that, of course, includes UK's current 3 game win streak.
#1.a is necessary to simply add some quality to SEC basketball. UK has dominated SEC basketball unlike any team has ever dominated its' conference. UK will always be regarded as a premier basketball program but that comes only because of a few OOC games and NCAA play, not the 18-20 SEC games. Even if it meant a loss every now and then it would a good thing for UK (IMO) to actually have some legitimate (i.e., year in and year out) conference basketball competition.
So who fits the bill, that is, a school with a regularly beatable football team AND a regularly (very) strong basketball team?
Kansas and Duke are the teams that just stand out in my mind. NC would be third choice but the "football dominance" part would be far more suspect than with the other two.
And while not the point of the question, I have long believed UK would be a much better fit in the ACC than the SEC. To that point, 4 of the 5 teams named by the article author are ACC teams.
Peace
Last edited:
If we are going to expand, ideally it would be something that got Missouri moved to the West where they belong, if we brought in one of the Carolna teams, most likely NC. St and either VT or WV that would make it possible to move Missouri. I just can't see us bringing in more than one Carolina team because expansion is all about creating TV footprints. Ideally that would likely be the best expansion possiblity.
But if we go west to get additional teams, I don't think Kansas would get invited, OU would, but OSU would want to come too, both have good athletic programs and would be nice additions to the conference but once again, 2 teams from the same state that isn't densely populated. But that would mean moving a West team to the East, and still leave Missouri in the East. If we move west I think this happens, Bama and AU both move to the Eastern division, that keeps all the old rival games going, Missour is moved to the West along with OU and OSU/one of the Texas schools. Texas is a huge state and having 2 teams there isn't like having 2 in NC. You can bet the west teams would jump on that and truthfully it would make the 2 divisions relatively even if it OU and TCU/OSU were the additions.
But if we go west to get additional teams, I don't think Kansas would get invited, OU would, but OSU would want to come too, both have good athletic programs and would be nice additions to the conference but once again, 2 teams from the same state that isn't densely populated. But that would mean moving a West team to the East, and still leave Missouri in the East. If we move west I think this happens, Bama and AU both move to the Eastern division, that keeps all the old rival games going, Missour is moved to the West along with OU and OSU/one of the Texas schools. Texas is a huge state and having 2 teams there isn't like having 2 in NC. You can bet the west teams would jump on that and truthfully it would make the 2 divisions relatively even if it OU and TCU/OSU were the additions.
It will be very interesting to see how it plays out when the Big 12 dissolves due to the Longhorn Network, which will probably be within the next 5-10 years.
I thought the ACC had a grant of rights deal or whatever that would make leaving the conference nearly impossible financially speaking.
IU has no business in the SEC. We don't want WVU or U of L because they can play the SEC in Ohio card in football as easily as we can. UNC and Duke are staying put. Doubt USCe and UGA will tolerate Clemson or Ga Tech. Same for UF and either Miami or FSU. NC State is intriguing, but would do little for the East in football. The natural is adding Oklahoma and another Texas school, moving Auburn to the East, and relegating Bama v UT to an occasional game. Let's help Texas wreck what is left of the B12.
This is a pretty silly subject but I'll play.
WOW!! One very lengthy exposition follows your opening salvo for such a "silly" subject.
And you suggest leaving the money out of the equation?? That is the very factor that makes this anything but a silly subject. The expansion when it comes will add to the (already) a multi-billion dollar value of the conference.
In short, ANY expansion is good for UK and the conference.
Certainly true on an athletic level, especially if limited to basketball . . . . and Caveman, I doubt that was your purpose.
I've had this discussion recently on the roundball forum, when folks who are (likely) basketball only fans come on and say that "we don't need the SEC to win in roundball (or anything else) to help UK . . . . UK is a Dynasty by itself, etc., etc.
I',m afraid many posters are a bit behind the times when this subject arises. Last year, in August of '16, whilst trying to get some football tickets purchased, I got a little lost, then got very mesmerized while driving on campus. Simply put, the cash cow that is the SEC has transformed our campus in the last 36 months, well beyond the stadium improvements/practice facility.
I would wager serious money that UK has spent more money on infrastructure (and I mean inflation adjusted numbers, here) than any other 3 year span in its history.
And the bulk of that money comes from our affiliation with the SEC.
Yes, I know we "could stand alone" with the power and glory of UK basketball . . . . which itself is profitable . . . . but standing alone could not be as profitable as our affiliation with the SEC has proven to be . . . . and it ain't a close comparison.
Hence, my SEC centrism which was well ingrained by the 1980's, has deepened greatly. I will pull for the SEC in chess and checkers, and encourage all I can reach to watch the matches on the SEC Network . . . . ChaChing!
My preference would be UNC and Duke.
My gut tells me that two more teams would require two additional TV footprints. So, that would mean UNC / VT, UNC / OU, NC State / VT, etc.
My gut tells me that two more teams would require two additional TV footprints. So, that would mean UNC / VT, UNC / OU, NC State / VT, etc.
Clemson neither of the Florida schools, Louisville or Tech will be admitted to the SEC, I don't know if you younger guys know this, but Tech was at one time in the SEC, a charter member I believe, but left because Bobby Dodd, Tech's coach, thought Bear Bryant was cheating.
The context of the question was what teams would benefit UK. I specifically opined what criteria I thought was important to actually help UK athletics. Adding tOSU or FSU to the SECE would likely result in an increase to shared conference revenue but I am not sure those additions would do anything at all to actually "help" UK athletics (i.e., football and mens basketball).
Yeah, I can be wordy at times but an article speculating about SEC additions that would specifically benefit UK is a bit of a silly topic don't you think?
Peace
How about this
1. Auburn to the East Missouri to the West
2. OU to the West and either NCSU, VA Tech or W. VA to the East
Personally I would prefer Va Tech
1. Auburn to the East Missouri to the West
2. OU to the West and either NCSU, VA Tech or W. VA to the East
Personally I would prefer Va Tech
IF you deon't want the TV money they could bring, OK. It isn't about competitiveness.
What specifically benefits UK is more revenue regardless of the athletics outcome in any sport or sports.
I suspect the majority comes from partnerships with private entities. UK was behind the curve when it came to housing. It finally conceded to allowing private companies to build dorms and the campus has transformed. The SEC deal has permitted a sizable commitment over a period of years, but I don't think that accounts for the campus transformation.
Of course, my comment was only about football. I enjoy UK basetball, but football is my main interest. I am not convinced the SEC needs to expand.
Auburn won't be coming to the East, Bama isn't willing to give up the Bama or UT game. If that was a possibility it would have happened when Missouri joined the conference. Missouri would likely head to the west if we added 2 of VT, NCST or WV. But Bama has too much pull to lose one of their 2 biggest rivalry games
Here's a wild scenario... add Oklahoma and Texas Tech, both to the West. Move Missouri to the West. Move BOTH Bama and Auburn to the East.
West - A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, State
East - Bama, Auburn, UT, Vandy, UK, Carolina, UGA, Florida
Or just tell Bama they can accept this, or the loss of the UT annual game, with Auburn moving alone... their choice.
Crazier still... skip Tech and go straight to Austin. Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, A&M would keep the West plenty stout. The East would eventually prove at least as stout.
Also, fall back to two inter-division games.
If things like this start happening, we had better finish finding our "A Game" in a hurry.
West - A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, State
East - Bama, Auburn, UT, Vandy, UK, Carolina, UGA, Florida
Or just tell Bama they can accept this, or the loss of the UT annual game, with Auburn moving alone... their choice.
Crazier still... skip Tech and go straight to Austin. Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, A&M would keep the West plenty stout. The East would eventually prove at least as stout.
Also, fall back to two inter-division games.
If things like this start happening, we had better finish finding our "A Game" in a hurry.
Last edited:
I understand your perspective, but I don't agree with it. Duke is a national brand and it's following and alumni base is heavily northeastern. They bring a different footprint. I hate Duke, but their brand is one that matters and moves the TV needle.
They also bring a top 10-15 academic institution and expansion has taught us that academics matter a lot. It's no accident that A&M and Mizzou are AAU schools with good academics and huge endowments. One reason that UL was anathema to a lot of the acc membership is that they are (by far) the worst school in the ACC.
You do realize the pull Bama has in the SEC don't you, the SEC office is in Alabama, SEC officials have to live in Alabama, if they tried to force Bama into something they didn't want a crazy Bama fan might kill them, I mean really kill them. SEC office won't be forcing Bama to do anything in the near future, they are the cash cow of the conference. I think it would be a good idea to move the offices to a state not in the SEC, at least one where the success of the football team isn't life and death. I personally like the make up you posted. We all have to get better to beat Bama, but hell we got to get better to beat Florida. If any teams change divisions I think that is what we end up with.
I expect sooner than that. I live in Austin, TX and UT folks talk about the conference dissolving and where schools would go daily. Everyone thought it was gonna happen last year.
Nobody ever expected Missouri to come to the SEC and i expect at least 1 school being invited that we do not expect.
No way I see FL being cool with FSU or Miami, no ay UK is on board with UofL, and no way SC agrees to Clemson. Texas would be an incredible addition but not sure what power Texas A&M has on that one. Oklahoma in the West seems very logical. VTech in the East makes sense as well.
No way I see FL being cool with FSU or Miami, no ay UK is on board with UofL, and no way SC agrees to Clemson. Texas would be an incredible addition but not sure what power Texas A&M has on that one. Oklahoma in the West seems very logical. VTech in the East makes sense as well.
I understand the sentiment but I think there is more to this than just "more revenue". If the SEC has two more football BEHEMOTHS (e.g. Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, Clemson), then I don't see a way that is beneficial to UK even if it comes with more revenue. The hill is already a climb, but add two more to the mix and it's that much tougher.
I think a more global addition that A) expands TV footprint, B) enhances basketball (and yes, I know that basketball isn't driving the ship), and C) enhances the academic pedigree would be best for UK. In that sense, UNC is the crown jewell with Va Tech close behind.
UNC and academic pedigree don't belong in the same sentence, not only should they not have won the championship this year they shouldn't have even been invited. I don't think they would want to come, they are a powerful voice in the ACC, wouldn't have any power if they came to the SEC. NCST is a diffferent story, I think that would be the team from NC who would be most interested. But right now, the ACC is a pretty solid conference, just won the football and basketball championships, are paying alot of cash out. Big12 is still unstable, Texas is making all the money, Big12 has been left out 2 of the 3 playoffs. Some Big12 teams would likely leave for much greener pastures if given an opportunity.
personally, I totally agree with you on UNC. It's a travesty what has happened there as the NCAA remains silent.
However, UNC is considered one of the nation's top public universities so I don't think all of that is washed away by the academic scandal associated with athletics. I think any conference (Big 10, Big 12, SEC) would love to have UNC. They move the needle.
Duke is a small school & thus has small alumni base. Net, nothing there. Yes, Duke moves the tiny hoops needle. It also move the huge football needle - negatively.
NC & VT would bring huge TV markets, but VA brings more than VT. I think NC always sticks with Duke & VA. JMO.
AAU members have good academics by definition given their standards. SEC would have taken non-AAU Okie or VT over Mizzou in a heartbeat. But MO worthwhile regardless.
For some reason B1G rejected Mo & favored lesse NE. Senseless to me.
Not crazy at all if added two western teams, even one more team like OK. Would totally expect this.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I'll be using this phraseology from now on!!
Similar threads
