ESPN: ‘ Could the SEC stage its own football playoff? It's all on the table at spring meetings’…
- Thread starter CockofEarle
- Start date
Not in favor of this at all. Seems like a big overreach by the SEC. Despite what the overwhelming majority around here think, the rest of the country is not that drilled down into the SEC conference, and mostly follow their regional conference.
Having their own playoffs looks to be counterproductive if the aim is to garner more interest nationwide. Water down effect IMHO.
Having their own playoffs looks to be counterproductive if the aim is to garner more interest nationwide. Water down effect IMHO.
Agreed.
Have a small playoff to determine the national playoff representative, and I think it's too any games. It would likely eliminate two teams making it, and I would be against it.
If we're talking just not participating in the national playoffs and having an only SEC playoff to end the year, I think it's a terrible idea.
Could be that the SEC is simply trying to apply pressure to go to a 12-team playoff. If 16 teams make the playoffs in FCS, I see no reason why the 12-team playoff should have been shot down.
I think FCS has a 24-team playoff. But I agree, this is really noise to get other leagues to buy into expanding the FBS playoffs.
I do find it intriguing to split the SEC into 4 4-school divisions Perhaps work out scheduling in football similar to what the NFL does. Maybe even apply it to basketball and baseball as well.
If they decide to ask others to join and make it a mega conference I could see this happening. However, they may have to eliminate some current schools and that may include Vanderbilt, Missouri, Arkansas and South Carolina….
This could be Step#1 in the SEC breaking away from the NCAA. They start their own playoff and then invite other Power 5 conferences to participate.
I was having a conversation with some friends on this subject. We started with teams that would be automatic in a 40 team super conference. Then most highly likely to be invited/join . Amon the three of us the scenario where we get left out is unanimous. Pretty sobering exercise.
As of today, no I don't think so, but at a future date, if there is a "Super Conference" , we may not even recognize what the conference landscape will look like.
I cannot imagine any school (school, not team) getting kicked out of a league for anything less than ongoing egregious behaviour. you don't kick out members, especially long-time charter members, "just cause".
Regarding egregious behaviour, the University of Texas at Austin comes to mind as the closest I have seen vis a vis the Big XII (LHN is a good example of this, IMO). And while we weren't angels in our latter ACC days, nor was the rest of the league.
Usually, a school leaves a league when there's a substantial shift in priorities from that of other league members.
Sewanee realized this within a few years of the SEC's founding, and they've been in D-III for many years. Georgia Tech had a problem with the way the SEC handled football and basketball recruiting, and Tulane realized, like Sewanee, they couldn't compete and there was a general de-emphasizing of athletics at the school. If not for Tulane alumni stepping in, I wouldn't be surprised if the Green Wave would have ended up in D-II or D-III.
And while if the SEC were to expand again (I'll continue to state again and again that 12 members are more than enough in a conference and 8 is ideal IMO), I doubt that a school like Vanderbilt or Ole Miss State would be considered for membership today. Even in 1990, we were considered in large part because of geographic expansion. Our athletic prowess was "sufficient."
"Due to restructuring we have now become a much leaner organization that will be able to adjust much more rapidly to the ever changing competitive landscape that we are now facing. I'm sure in time all we be able to realize that we did was best for the organization as a whole.
You know, the ole it's not you it's me speech.
But our TV reach was not. This day and time, if you can sew up a state like Texas, and to a lesser extent, Missouri, you do it. The beast is becoming ever more hungry and you have to feed the beast.
The SEC is not going to do anything that causes the members to get less money per school. That includes expanding beyond the 16 teams. The talk about playoffs is because Sankey is pissed about the playoff expansion talks. Other conferences want guarantees that the conference winner gets an automatic bid instead of the best teams. They are not thrilled with the idea of an expanded playoff having three or more SEC teams in the playoffs and their conference having one or none.
I would like to think so, but with the one lone exception from last year (Cincy), not only are the odds stacked against a non P5 team, even if they should go undefeated (again Cincy), most argue against such a team being included in the playoffs.
1990 and the immediate aftermath was about promoting the divisional concept. That's headed out the window. The SEC would have loved to have Florida State, though.
I remember reading articles a few years ago that all indications were that F$U would be joining the SEC and that we would rejoin the ACC. But once the faculty in Tallahassee got involved....
The SEC wanted Miami, too but both said no. They opted for the easy ACC. So USC was third choice and really, really, really wanted an invite. If USC had been left out back then, would have probably gotten and invite later instead of that dreaded B10 pretender Mo. or even earlier. USC is a natural SEC member as it was an ACC member but was kicked and verbally, psychologically, mentally, ___________ and physically abused by the deaded "Big Four" and the ACC in general.
We are a natural geographic member of the ACC. We are a natural demographic member of the SEC. Same with Clemron.
Only in hoops were we abused by the ACC, and that was because of the league's history with McGuire. We were in the crossfire between the ACC and McGuire.
Had F$U been formally issued an invitation by the SEC in 1990 and accepted, we would have gone back to the ACC. Now it's possible that had we gone back to the ACC at that time, given the current expansion climate, we might very well be moving to the SEC in the near future along with Clemron. Similar, perhaps to why VPI is now in the ACC - pressure by UVA and the Virginia state legislature.
Last edited:
I think both terms fit USC for the SEC and ACC.
Not sure the ACC would have issued a USC invite with that scenario. USC desperately tried getting back in the ACC after seeing how dim playing as an independent was in the late 70s but was told to pound rocks but not publicly at least. Instead of just telling USC to join some fifth rate conference at least the ACC allowed USC to say no thanks to their standards for re-joining.
USC and Va Tech would send reps to ACC meetings. Don't see why pols didn't get involved and force the ACC to invite USC as they did with Va Tech.
Sadly, there was likely too much negativity still in 1977 within the USC community for state government to put pressure on Clemron such that they could tell Greensboro that they could vote for expansion only if were to bring USC back. Had such pressure been applied, I could see the ACC issuing invitations to both USC and Georgia Tech
The rumor regarding the standards for re-joining were that all the revenue we received from TV monies, etc. during the years of independence would have to be split 8 ways. Fine with me. Further, I would state that all the revenue the ACC received which they split 7 ways would need to be reapportioned and split 8 ways. I would also be okay with paying "maintenance dues" assessed each member during our time away. And if that meant, for example, that Maryland gets a "refund check" for "maintenance dues", fine with me. If you want finances to be like we never left, this is the closest I can think of to implement it. I wonder if the ACC would have agreed to "negotiate?"
Get unlimited access today.