I was looking at how the changes that USC have made will effect LSU and the SEC. With the sanctions and scholarship implications it is going to be tough for USC looking forward a few years and USC returns to the Pac in the Pac 10 now. The Pac 10 will be wide open and maybe a little more like the SEC in more teams can seriously challenge for the Pac 10 title. Also i think this makes it more likely that they will continue to add teams and go to a 2 team split division. But it wont have Texas and the Big 12 to pull from so does that now mean that Texas and others will focus on the SEC expanding with an A&M, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma? USC coming back to the pack may have serious money implications to the Pac 10 and force the continued expansion. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the NCAA the next few years. Money rules college football and the Big 12 is left in a quagmire and probab;y decides the future of the mega conferences.
I like the idea of the SEC adding Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. Have all 4 of these teams in the SEC West. Move Alabama & Auburn to the East. This makes pretty even divisions strength wise.
I guess we'd have to change the name to the Southern Conference. Our conference is just fine the way it is.
Funny, with the exception of Arkansas, that's where we all (current SEC members) came from prior to the creation of the SEC.
Texas won't go anywhere they aren't the 1 big dog on the porch. They would just be one of the many big dogs on the same porch and that just isn't the Texas way.
The facts would say there's not a whole lot of difference in these conferences as to who can seriously challenge for a conference title. Since 1992, Florida has won 7 SEC titles, also winning in 1991 for 8. Since 1992, Southern Cal has won 9 PAC 10 titles... not sure the difference is statistically relevant. Ohio State has just won one more title in the Big Ten than Florida in the same time frame in the SEC. Since 1992, the PAC 10 has had only four teams go undefeated in regular season conference play... the SEC has had 8, the Big Ten has had 6, the Big 12 has had five. So I'm not sure the recent events at USC are going to make the PAC 10 any more or any less competitive. The only thing that will change is the conference TV revenues if UCLA doesn't step up and they find teams like Oregon and Washington controlling things like they did some 10-15 years ago. You are right that the PAC 10 has more impact on the national scene when one of the LA schools does well... and the conference is much better off financially when the school happens to be USC.
going back to '92, yeah you're pretty much right. don't know about other conferences without google, but the SEC in the 90's was a 2 trick pony. Florida and Bama. Sure, other schools had their moments, but for the most part, it was just them. A lot more parity in our conference now than there was then. As for USC, if I remember right, the 90's were a dark time for them as well. So the vast majority of those titles you've mentioned have come in the last 10 years.
