Freddie in today's world I would have to agree with you. There are few people in our society who stand behind their word. Unfortunately that is so true.
So much for a "gentlemen's agreement" in the SEC.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
They should never have relied on a "gentleman's agreement" at all. The people who may have shook hands on this (if they did) are probably no longer in charge.
So I agree to meet you for coffee & someone else ask me for coffee at the same time for an additional $ 25,000,000 per year . Can't decide which offer I should accept.....
You also hear this complaint in the B1G about OSU and Mich. getting preferential treatment. Interestingly, you don't hear that complaint in the SEC about Alabama, at least not in the same way. People focus a lot on Coach Saban, but you don't hear of him telling the league powers how to do things. If Texas thinks it is going to join the SEC and dictate how things go, it has another thing coming.
And isn't the gem here Oklahoma from a football standpoint? Everyone talks about Texas. It has a lot of resources, but it's not even the best program in Texas.
Ummm....our own fans on this forum have long complained about the SEC "powers" getting preferential treatment in scheduling, bowl selection, etc.
And its a 100% legit complaint. Take a look through SEC Network, league social media accounts, its an never-ending Bama love fest.
Agree, but if your word is not worth anything then what type of relationship does anyone have.
Again, we don't know if this so called gentleman's agreement ever existed. One person claiming it did doesn't make it so...
In different ways, I think you're all correct. Look no farther than the sweetheart schedules Bama, Georgia and LSU got last year with the conference-only slate. It was blatantly obvious the SEC was trying to give them the best chances to make the CFP.
BUT. the SEC doesn't show preferential treatment when it comes to payouts for members. It's all split even/Steven. While Texas and OU are used to getting the lion's share of the wealth and having their collective way, that won't fly in the SEC. There are too many other blue blood programs that can and will stop that crap in its tracks.
Another issue is if -- IF -- the rumors are true and that Sankey is trying to get even more big name schools to form a superconference (something I suspect may come to eventually pass), then that would further dilute their sway. It would be much easier for Sankey and the other members to tell them to enjoy life as an independent.
TOSU nor Michigan get any bigger payout than any other members of the B1G (except Nebraska by mutual agreement for a period of time).
In no way did I say that nor would any of our fans say that. I said “we’d probably lose anyway” in gist and the view was strictly from a personal dislike of our rival.
I know. I am just pointing out if you did that would be cowardly. If you bailed on playing Clemson from fear of losing. Same if A&M doesn't want to play Texas when it joins the SEC.
A&M barely beat a depleted Tar Hole team a few months ago, they do not deserve any veto powers....
It doesn't matter who beat whom, it comes down to what is one's word worth.
The article actually says "absolute veto power over adding another school." It doesn't mention another Texas school. I find it hard to believe the SEC would give one member (the newest member at that) to have full control over conference expansion.
I understand Freddie, I was just talking a little BS on here with y'all. Why dont the SEC take UNC and UVA as well?
Take NC, Duke, and Florida State, Miami, gut the ACC and leave Clemson in a shell of a conference.
The article contains a quote from a source that seems to be the crux of the debate in this thread. My opinion is while the actual quote may be accurate. That the original source worded his quoted statement poorly and left his statement open to misinterpretation.
If you go back to the 1st page of this thread. In post #34, I addressed this very issue.
I edited a version of the quote, "striking out" the offending pronoun and placing my interpretation of the source's intended subjects in parentheses.
I assure you that SEC has never granted a member school "sole" veto power over the rest of the conference for the admittance of a potential member.
Sadly it seems the end is what matters and how we get there doesnt anymore. That's been the trend for several years now and it grows in popularity each day.
So fall in line or not... but dont expect the powers that be to care which you choose. I dont believe they do.
So fall in line or not... but dont expect the powers that be to care which you choose. I dont believe they do.
Unfortunately, it's a "dog eat dog world" out there. Just make sure that you are not the one wearing milk bone underwear.
Texas AM can't claim they didn't know how the SEC operates. As a plebian in the conference, we definitely know.
Texas A&M failed to understand if the rules get in the way you change the rules.
Well I think the root of all this is this;
If joining the SEC is going to help out one of your main rivals? Why would you want it to happen?
I took a quick look over at some of the Clempson forums and it seems a lot of people believe it's only a matter of time until the SEC invites them and FSU.
This is solely happening because of money. If Texas and Oklahoma were already looking to leave the Big 12 because of how diminished their TV contract was going to get... It makes a lot of sense for the SEC to get them to join instead of them joining the Pac12 or B1G.
With how quick this popped up despite how long it was in the works... I wouldn't be surprised again if there were another two schools to join the conversation in the next few months.
Clempson/FSU isn't a tied package. By default the SEC would probably want to get a team in North Carolina and Virginia before overlapping foot prints of Clempson and FSU.
With that said; I could easily see something crazy like FSU and VT joining or Clempson and NC State.
It's all about the $.
If you look at a few of the Clempson tiger forums; there's a few people that actually want this.
They could add SC State, Wofford, Furman, UAB, and Georgia Southern to the ACC and it would make it even easier to make it to the playoffs.
An agreement is an agreement. Whether it's coffee or $25,000,000. If that is the case then your word is worth nothing.
I don't want Clemson in, but if that's what the conference wants, so be it. The SC TV market is 5.1 million. The Texas market is 30 million. You do the math and you will see it make sense there but not in SC. I think it may be just a matter of time, but some schools, (Texas and Oklahoma) want to be in the SEC. Some schools like Clemson do not or at least that's what they have said and done. They had an option before Missouri signed on or maybe it was Arkansas. There are laws on the books in NC to prevent those schools from splitting up. I believe King ward posted in another thread what that was exactly. VT or Virginia could be an option, new market, as well as FSU. (22 million people in FL.)
There is one thing that supercedes any "gentleman's agreement". That is cold hard cash. Everybody, including TAMU gets richer off of this deal. Now if TAMU wanted to play hard ball and threaten to leave, I am sure the SEC would tell them to go ahead. Oklahoma and Texas coming into the conference is much more important than TAMU
Similar threads
