Good point. There's even a little history that goes with the TCU/Texas/Oklahoma on-going dysfunction. Back when the Big 12 was formed, the new conference decided not to pick either TCU or SMU because they wanted to keep the Dallas-Fort Worth area (the 6th largest TV market in the country and the largest in the Big 12 footprint) without a team. The thinking was it would keep that huge market "open" for recruiting by Oklahoma and Texas, as both schools were within a 100 mile drive... so they added Baylor instead. My guess is that dispute still has legs, and is the reason the conference didn't jump on picking up TCU when Nebraska and Colorado bolted. Imagine TCU in the SEC playing all their games at Jerry's World. Me likey.
ATM Gotta agree. This is all being driven by TV Money and market share and SEC will want to open up new tv markets. Its the only way it makes sense, to up the tv money so there is a bigger pie to slice. Texas is getting over on the rest of big 12 minus 2 by taking double every one elses share and now have the LHN on espn which really puts ATM at a disadvantage. Cant say as I blame them I live in the Houston area and am really looking forward to this I always though A&M would be a good fit in the SEC and am looking forward to LSU beating them every year. :geaux:
Here is the ACC perspective on losing one of its schools to SEC, if A&M goes: In each case, it's instructive to remember who makes the decision to switch athletic conferences. University chancellors, presidents and boards of trustees usually are charged with that task. And while the SEC has won the past five national championships in football, the ACC has finished first among BCS conferences in the NCAA's Academic Progress Ratings in each of those academic years. Chancellors like to be aligned with other schools that possess highly regarded academic reputations. The big dollars of the SEC are enticing, but having an association with Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Virginia is not to be underestimated when evaluating chancellors' motivations. Another point is that in terms of football, the ACC schools would put themselves in danger of being considerably less competitive if they joined the SEC. Virginia Tech dominates the ACC but loses almost every time it plays a nonconference opponent of any estimation, with recent defeats coming to Boise State, East Carolina and even James Madison. Florida State gets thumped almost every year by Florida; why join the SEC and get clobbered by a bunch of other football powers, too? Bottom line, except for the money in the SEC - which is enticing - there aren't many reasons to leave the ACC. Read more: Tysiac: ACC shake-up unlikely - College - NewsObserver.com
Yep, I been saying that VT would be crazy to want the SEC. They are a 'premier' program the last 10-12 years, but that would end if they had to play an SEC schedule. A couple of OOC teams not mentioned in what you posted are LSU and Bama, which also recently beat VT.
I think it is a mistake to think a VT or A&M would "lead a life of misery" by joining the SEC. The recruiting tables change, the match-ups change, many good things could happen for both schools. There's more to this than who beat who two years ago.
Beat? LOL.... Try pounded into submission! VT really don't want to come here and be shown how less than premier they really are.
I agree to a point, but it would be a long road for them. How long has Arky and USCe been in the SEC? Yes, both have been better the last couple of years, but neither has won the conference after what, 20 years? I actually think TAMU would benefit more than VT. This would hurt VT, because they are already perennial top 10 contenders, and play in many BCS bowls. They would go down initially, and it would take time to contend in the SEC for them. TAMU is already down, coming up a bit very lately. They would benefit immediately IMO, with their proximity to fertile recruiting grounds. They would not contend for conference championships any time soon, but they already don't do that in the Big 9.
