My hot take...

[LazyIslander]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12 regular season.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

 

[mhhorne]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

you are not right. learn some humility you moron.

 

[FCB 2013 treble]

Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

During the 2017 football season, the SEC would of had three members in the college football playoffs( Alabama, Georgia and Oklahoma). Also when this new contract between ESPN and the SEC commences, there should not be a strain on any SEC member athletic budget.

Right now I find these two teams being the winning lottery ticket from what is available or make themselves available for conferences that want to expand.

 

[Carolina4]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

Texas and OU aren’t doing this to stay the same. They’ll both improve or at least have the opportunity to. It’ll be more difficult for them, but I’d imagine this will give both teams, especially Texas, a boost. OU may not win as many games, but they’ll likely be a better team.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP

 

[Thirdcatgy]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

Both of those schools have a steady stream of top-tier athletes. They'll adjust to the SEC style of play and will be a problem at some point. OU probably immediately. UT has a new staff and Austin is the hottest city in the country at the moment.

Beyond that, it's about playing the percentages. IF we were to find success under Beamer, that's still two additional teams who would need to have "off years" for us to be in the mix.

They might not be world-killers at the moment. However, their potential does further dilute our chances of winning in the future.

 

[alaskagamecock]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

Both are way better than us, so therefore that doesn't water down the conference for us. I assume you feel we enhance the quality of play in the SEC more than adding them will?

 

[BigWillieCock]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

Maybe, maybe not. But that’s beside the point. TX and OU could feel the college football earth shifting again after NIL. So did the SEC.

They tried the Big 12 thing for the last decade didn’t work. Neither the schools nor the SEC wanted to play catch up. Control your own destiny is all this is about, not improving the league.

“Don’t delay acting on a good idea. Chances are someone else has just thought of it, too. Success comes to the one who acts first.”

 

[king ward]

I won't dignify some of the assertions.

 

[ToddFlanders]

SEC is playing the long game. With those two added into the mix - chances are that in a 16 team playoff, the conference gets 5-6 teams in.

 

[leftneck]

They bring money. That's all you need to know.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

People said the same idiotic stuff about TAMU and Mizzou being added. “They can’t win in the SEC… They water it down… Blah blah blah” Mizzou went on to win back to back SEC East championships soon after joining, and TAMU has been a highly ranked contender in the toughest division of the toughest conference in America quite often since joining, produced a Heisman winner and damn near got into the playoffs last year.

The fact is you don’t know if you are right or not. OU is consistently one of the best teams in the nation. Texas is the historic power in the state that produces more HS FB talent than all others combined. This deal has almost nothing to do with how they fit in geographically or athletically, and everything to do with dollar bills. TV pays those bills- so, IOW: Which teams will add more eyes to SEC FB games when they are on TV- both OU and UT will do that so they are not watering anything that matters down at all. Adding them will make the pot bigger and the split richer for all teams involved. They are spiking the punch not watering it down.
adding clemsun- WOULD water it down. They have some national appeal but their TV market is split with us in a low population state and the SEC already has us.

Non- revenue sports do not matter. Period. MEN’S Basketball matters IN MARCH. Beyond that one month of the year all the TV money is spent on FB. There is virtually no difference cost wise between traveling to College Station or Austin Texas. Your concerns are meaningless in the face of the BILLIONS in revenue they are gonna be making after this expansion.

 

[polo-loco]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

Yeah, this is about money, TV markets, etc.

 

[Neanderthal]

People said the same idiotic stuff about TAMU and Mizzou being added. “They can’t win in the SEC… They water it down… Blah blah blah” Mizzou went on to win back to back SEC East championships soon after joining, and TAMU has been a highly ranked contender in the toughest division of the toughest conference in America quite often since joining, produced a Heisman winner and damn near got into the playoffs last year.

The fact is you don’t know if you are right or not. OU is consistently one of the best teams in the nation. Texas is the historic power in the state that produces more HS FB talent than all others combined. This deal has almost nothing to do with how they fit in geographically or athletically, and everything to do with dollar bills. TV pays those bills- so, IOW: Which teams will add more eyes to SEC FB games when they are on TV- both OU and UT will do that so they are not watering anything that matters down at all. Adding them will make the pot bigger and the split richer for all teams involved. They are spiking the punch not watering it down.
adding clemsun- WOULD water it down. They have some national appeal but their TV market is split with us in a low population state and the SEC already has us.

Non- revenue sports do not matter. Period. MEN’S Basketball matters IN MARCH. Beyond that one month of the year all the TV money is spent on FB. There is virtually no difference cost wise between traveling to College Station or Austin Texas. Your concerns are meaningless in the face of the BILLIONS in revenue they are gonna be making after this expansion.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.

Last year, Oklahoma won the Big12. Iowa State has never won the Big 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_12_Conference_football_champions

 

[BattleshipTexas]

There is virtually no difference cost wise between traveling to College Station or Austin Texas.

I agree with most of your points and would be pretty sure it is even cheaper to travel to Austin from South Carolina than to College Station from South Carolina.

 

[Lakecock1]

People said the same idiotic stuff about TAMU and Mizzou being added. “They can’t win in the SEC… They water it down… Blah blah blah” Mizzou went on to win back to back SEC East championships soon after joining, and TAMU has been a highly ranked contender in the toughest division of the toughest conference in America quite often since joining, produced a Heisman winner and damn near got into the playoffs last year.

The fact is you don’t know if you are right or not. OU is consistently one of the best teams in the nation. Texas is the historic power in the state that produces more HS FB talent than all others combined. This deal has almost nothing to do with how they fit in geographically or athletically, and everything to do with dollar bills. TV pays those bills- so, IOW: Which teams will add more eyes to SEC FB games when they are on TV- both OU and UT will do that so they are not watering anything that matters down at all. Adding them will make the pot bigger and the split richer for all teams involved. They are spiking the punch not watering it down.
adding clemsun- WOULD water it down. They have some national appeal but their TV market is split with us in a low population state and the SEC already has us.

Non- revenue sports do not matter. Period. MEN’S Basketball matters IN MARCH. Beyond that one month of the year all the TV money is spent on FB. There is virtually no difference cost wise between traveling to College Station or Austin Texas. Your concerns are meaningless in the face of the BILLIONS in revenue they are gonna be making after this expansion.

I'd love be able to give your post 1,000 LIKES!

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

Fortunately we have been in the top 20/top 15 or so of wealthiest, most profitable programs in the nation for years running due to SEC money and it will only get better. We need to capitalize on it more.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

SEC is playing the long game. With those two added into the mix - chances are that in a 16 team playoff, the conference gets 5-6 teams in.

Chess not checkers.

 

[lakemurraycock1]

Yes, I'm a moron. Proof is in all the things I said which were wrong. Which were?

Your first sentence in you initial post. Not the quoted post. The first sentence in the quoted one is fine. The SEC will be stronger and more valuable. The ACC would love to add those teams and markets. Having those teams go to another conference would make the SEC less dominant. Like it or not the strength of a conference is the value of it.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

Yes, I'm a moron. Proof is in all the things I said which were wrong. Which were?

The entire premise of your post is wrong. You are basically saying this is a bad move because of FB relevance or competition as well as the distance to these schools from places like SC. Neither of those reasons are even playing into the discussion. This is about money not about finding teams that can beat Alabama to join the SEC. If that were the criteria there would be nobody to add, we are already the best conference. This is about creating more games each year that will be attractive to TV viewers across the nation. Not only did we add both teams from one of the most heated rivalries in college FB- but OU- Bama, OU- Florida.. UT- UGA, UT-LSU… And so forth make more interesting matchups than your average Saturday CFB game, will attract more eyes and thus make the conference/ and ESPN more money.

Oh and you said Iowa St won the Big 12 last year.. OU beat them in the conference championship game. I thought most Gamecocks would remember that as our HC stayed in Oklahoma to help coach that game…

I am not/ was not calling you a moron BTW- that was another poster. I just think this was a very bad/poorly thought out take. You are thinking about why this merger makes sense with a 1992 mindset. The SEC and ESPN are thinking about 2032 and beyond.

 

[funktavious]

I think for last season, Notre Dame was considered a member of the ACC. They lost badly to Clemson in the ACC Championship game. You would think that losing by 24 points in the Conference Championship would have eliminated them from contention. To no surprise, both teams representing the ACC in the playoffs were completely smoked in the first round.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

I think for last season, Notre Dame was considered a member of the ACC. They lost badly to Clemson in the ACC Championship game. You would think that losing by 24 points in the Conference Championship would have eliminated them from contention. To no surprise, both teams representing the ACC in the playoffs were completely smoked in the first round.

Notre Dame is not an ACC football member. Notre Dame was allowed to use the ACC last year as a conduit to the playoffs. The ACC bends over backwards to accommodate ND. The fact that ND played a full ACC schedule last year, and made it to the playoffs exposed how weak the ACC is. Notre Dame and Clemson were soundly defeated in the playoffs.

 

[FCB 2013 treble]

Notre Dame is not an ACC football member. Notre Dame was allowed to use the ACC last year as a conduit to the playoffs. The ACC bends over backwards to accommodate ND. The fact that ND played a full ACC schedule last year, and made it to the playoffs exposed how weak the ACC is. Notre Dame and Clemson were soundly defeated in the playoffs.

I thought Norte Dame temporary joined ACC in football as a result of a some teams prematurely canceled or delayed their football season that was on Norte Dame football schedule due to the Corona virus. Some conferences revised their schedule to create something like a "bubble" (help contain or limit spread of the virus?) and Norte Dame was added temporary ACC so they can ensure that they would be able to play football. That is what I kind of remembered, but I could be wrong.

 

[funktavious]

Notre Dame is not an ACC football member. Notre Dame was allowed to use the ACC last year as a conduit to the playoffs. The ACC bends over backwards to accommodate ND. The fact that ND played a full ACC schedule last year, and made it to the playoffs exposed how weak the ACC is. Notre Dame and Clemson were soundly defeated in the playoffs.

I completely agree and it was one of the most boring Notre Dame schedules I've ever seen. They've always been more of a natural fit with the Big 10 conference and is probably where they should have gone but I don't think the Big 10 was willing to accommodate their no conference football clause which is really the only thing you'd want Notre Dame for.

 

[rogue cock]

Fortunately we have been in the top 20/top 15 or so of wealthiest, most profitable programs in the nation for years running due to SEC money and it will only get better. We need to capitalize on it more.

Serious question. Yes, it will bring us more money, but it also brings everyone else in the conference at least the same amount as us. So is that really an advantage....especially if we move to 9 conference games?

 

[Horseshoe 04]

The little school squeeze is a few years closer

 

[cockofdawn]

Texas and OU don't make the conference stronger... in fact, they water it down.

Texas hasn't been good in a long time.
OU has won their conference a lot recently and made it to the CFP, only to get waxed. They are the only Big12 team to make the CFP, and haven't won a game.
Last year, Iowa St. won the Big12.
Last year, the ACC put 2 schools in the CFP, the SEC put 1. That would have been the same if Texas and OU were in the SEC. And that CFP money would have been split between more schools.
They are big schools with big fan bases, but they do not enhance the quality of play in the SEC.
They put a bigger strain on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports, and make everyone get to play cross-division opponents even less often.

probably an unpopular opinion but as usual, I'm right

I respectfully disagree. I too do not want Texas or OU but I disagree with those two “watering it down”.