Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
VT & NC State would be the best options as far as television markets and cultural fit.
Wouldn't mind it because we should thump them regularly in Football.Indiana would bring good size tv markets.
This is a pretty silly subject but I'll play.
UK does not need an expansion to succeed in the SEC.
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.
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).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.
IF you deon't want the TV money they could bring, OK. It isn't about competitiveness.IU has no business in the SEC.
Which is why NC & Puke won't happen. Duke brings no meaningful TV NC doesn't.My preference would be UNC and Duke.
My gut tells me that two more teams would require two additional TV footprints.
What specifically benefits UK is more revenue regardless of the athletics outcome in any sport or sports.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
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!
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
Which is why NC & Puke won't happen. Duke brings no meaningful TV NC doesn't.
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.
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.
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?
What specifically benefits UK is more revenue regardless of the athletics outcome in any sport or sports.
I was going to reply, and found that vhcat70 had done so for me.
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.
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.
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.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.
NC & VT would bring huge TV markets, but VA brings more than VT. I think NC always sticks with Duke & VA. JMO.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.
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.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.
Not crazy at all if added two western teams, even one more team like OK. Would totally expect this.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.
GOAT = Greatest of All Time
GOATIER = Greatest of All Time in Every Respect