Comments on: Push Begins For Regular-Season Big 12-SEC Games, But SEC-ACC Games May Make More Sense

By: Your Sunday Chryco Auto News UPDATE: | Chryco Auto News Digest

Your Sunday Chryco Auto News UPDATE: | Chryco Auto News Digest — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:42:12 +0000

[...] to help save the ACC and keep the status quo intact for just a bit longer, Mike Slive and company could line-up an annual “SEC vs. ACC Football Challenge.”That idea still makes sense. In fact, Bowlsby admitted last week that he’s had conversations [...]

By: Should John Swofford call up Jim Delany or Mike Slive for a ACC/Big 10 or ACC/SEC scheduling alliance? | Sports Blog United

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:49:27 +0000

[...] scheduling alliance with the SEC. Back in May one of my favorite SEC blogs Mr.SEC suggested such a SEC/ACC partnership. What’s driving some of this [...]

By: Should John Swofford call up Jim Delany or Mike Slive for a ACC/Big 10 or ACC/SEC scheduling alliance? » All Sports Discussion

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:36:26 +0000

[...] scheduling alliance with the SEC. Back in May one of my favorite SEC blogs Mr.SEC suggested such a SEC/ACC partnership. What’s driving some of this [...]

By: SEC Fan

SEC Fan — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:19:01 +0000

Florida already has Halloween booked every year – that’s the weekend the Dawgs are in town.

By: Homepage | MrSEC

Homepage | MrSEC — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:44:44 +0000

[...] might mean creating a year-in, year-out series between SEC teams and those of another conference, like the ACC as we mentioned back in May. Both leagues have 14 teams, a common mega-sponsor in AT&T for branding the games, and there [...]

By: Homepage | MrSEC

Homepage | MrSEC — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:31:57 +0000

[...] tried to draw up examples of how such a year-in, year-out agreement might work in this post, but these are only examples of who could play in a given year and where. Anyone judging the plan [...]

By: Chitownrolltide

Chitownrolltide — Thu, 31 May 2012 02:53:22 +0000

@USCTraveler With all due respect, I can’t continue to sit idly by and allow this suggestion that it would be acceptable to the B10/P12 to allow its Rose Bowl champion to potentially meet a B12/SEC for the NCG. How self serving can you be? I suppose if I were from either league I would try to reserve my seat at the table in this manner too. This goes beyond merely suggesting that champions be considered but suggest that the Rose Bowl champion representing these two conferences should be assured the right to play for the national championship every year. That’s not only loony but smacks of elitism.

How about this for size; The SEC will play the ACC champion in a Rose Bowl type game and the B10/P12/B12 plus any challenges from ND or Boise State can fight amongst yourselves for the right to play this winner in the National Championship Game. Its coming off as quite arrogant to suggest that the road to the NC crown should naturally go through the Rose Bowl.

By: HanselGretel

HanselGretel — Fri, 25 May 2012 22:00:55 +0000

I’d rather play a 9 game SEC schedule instead of a crappy ACC team.

By: Quantrillionaire

Quantrillionaire — Thu, 24 May 2012 20:20:06 +0000

@Bocktean @USCTraveler Also that ASU/MIZZ game was won in overtime against a first year quarterback’s first game against a BCS foe.

By: Quantrillionaire

Quantrillionaire — Thu, 24 May 2012 20:16:32 +0000

@AllTideUp brilliant!

By: OldArmy

OldArmy — Thu, 24 May 2012 19:29:47 +0000

@MoKelly Just divorced tu. Lets wait until the ink dries before our new in-laws push us to get back together with our old ones…….

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:59:25 +0000

I’ll throw this out there too:

I’ve heard that the B1G/PAC 12 agreement includes a scheduling agreement for all sports, not just football. If that’s the case then the SEC/Big 12 can do the same and get creative in the process.

1) A preseason basketball tournament every year in KC….4 teams from the Big 12 and 4 teams from the SEC. Mizzou and Kansas can host the thing every year and they can cycle through the other solid programs in both leagues to fill out the rest of the roster. KC gets a big time college bball tournament back and the 2 leagues get another huge TV event to showcase.

2) They can put together 2 more league co-owned bowl games as well. If the ACC is going bye-bye anyway that vacates 2 SEC/ACC bowl match-ups every year.

3) You could have other tournaments for baseball, softball, and others as well although the TV exposure on anything else isn’t going to be as great.

By: NickThePittFan

NickThePittFan — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:20:53 +0000

Great idea but you are assuming a lot. You are assuming that the SEC WANTS to stabilize the ACC.

I think all signs would be indicative of the SEC wanting to have the opposite effect on the stability of the ACC… they know at some point they want to go east (to get to 16) and to do that, they are going to want ACC schools from the mid-atlantic region.

I think that is why the SEC arranged the Bowl game with the Big XII (which was near extinction, on 2 occasions over the last 2 years), instead of a growing ACC.

Because outside of Texas and Oklahoma, how many tradition rich programs exist in the Big XII, especially if you look at the history of college football, prior to 2000.

It’s all cyclical. Compare Texas/OU to Miami/FSU in the 90′s. Heck, even do it with the same teams from the 80′s (OU started to dip in the late 80′s and FSU started to rise at about the same time, around ’87, I believe).

Then, look at the history of the ACC vs. Big XII’s other members, say, prior to 2000. Look at national championships and 8 win seasons (I say 8 because it used to be that they played only 11 game schedules).

Once one makes those comparisons, they see that the long-term tradition, lies within the ACC and not the Big XII. Remember, we are talking about both conferences current members (including Pitt and Syarcuse, which will probably be in the ACC, starting next season).

By: JamieThornton

JamieThornton — Thu, 24 May 2012 09:06:09 +0000

I agree that playing sec teams are not going to keep those ACC schools in the conference. There probably will become an agreement with the SEC/Big 12 during the season. On top of that, why would you want to stay in a conference that cares about basketball and is going to provide a smaller amount of tv revenue v.s the big 12. THat’s what this is all about. money. If your Clemson and FSU, what gets you more excited? Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, TCU, WVU exc or Boston College, Duke, Maryland, Syracuse, PItt, Virginia, exc. and if the big 12 goes to 14, you will probably be adding atleast 2 if not 3 your southern acc rivals. So lets say FSU, MIami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson go to the Big 12. I don’t think it’s a hard choice.

By: JamieThornton

JamieThornton — Thu, 24 May 2012 08:59:02 +0000

I was trying to keep from laughing, while reading this article. And it was better than I thought at first. Seriously though. Outside the southern ACC schools (and not all of those), how can those games be better than Big 12 games? I’m just saying. It’s not even close. I would love to see a labor day game with Bama v.s Texas. A Trick or Treat special with Oklahoma v.s FLorida. And if these southern ACC schools like Clemson and FSU end up in the BIG 12, you already have the Florida/FSU and South Carolina/CLemson games. Heck, if the Big 12 goes to 14 and adds Georgia Tech, imagine the Georgia/Georgia Tech games. Yeah, nice article, but watching SEC teams play Boston College, Virginia, Maryland, Duke, exc, exc, just makes me yawn.

By: 10Vol85

10Vol85 — Thu, 24 May 2012 04:43:14 +0000

Just curious about how you plan on objectively ranking the 4 best teams after these plans are implemented. The PAC and Big 10 have already decided to go to isolationist scheduling. If the SEC and ACC or Big 12 were to also do this, how in the world are you going to compare the strength of the SEC alliance vs. the PAC/Big 10 alliance vs. those outside the alliance?! There will be no meaningful interaction in the whole course of a season. It’s bad enough now with the limited number of meaningful interconference games, most of which are played very early in the season before teams get rolling good. More intraconference games and more isolationist scheduling will make it impossible to compare the strength of the isolated conferences before the bowl games.

By: USCTraveler

USCTraveler — Thu, 24 May 2012 04:10:31 +0000

@Bocktean I would think not having OOC losses being a factor in getting a playoff slot would increase quality OOC games because if you lost one, it wouldn’t keep you from getting into a playoff.

But I was honestly thinking about early season OOC matchups like LSU-Oregon or Bama-Michigan.

I am assuming the reason that Saban likes scheduling those games are the same reasons USC has historically tried to schedule some tough OOC games like Bama, OU, Arky, Auburn and tOSU. It doesn’t line up every year, but when it does, the high profile, high pressure atmosphere of those games is a great way to get a team (especially a young team) ready for big games against conference opponents and bowl games, while also giving the team great exposure for recruiting.

I actually hadn’t thought about late season OOC games like USC-ND, Clemson vs Gamecocks or UGA-GT.

I guess if it was the last game of the year like USC-ND is when it’s at the Coliseum, there might be some temptation to rest your stars, but I really can’t see it happening, as those games all mean so much to the schools, players and the fans. Seems like injuries can happen any time and you can’t control them, but I see your point and it is a valid one.

I just think a coach who rested his starters and lost to his rivals would get roasted by the boosters and alums, as those games (at least in the case of USC-ND) are the games we care about more than any other. So yes, it would increase the injury risk vs not playing your stars, but I don’t think many coaches would rest their stars against their rivals.

Of course, if someone did get hurt, talk radio would go crazy about what an idiot the coach was. LOL

For me, I still think you’d get so many better OOC matchups if they didn’t hinder your chances of getting in a playoff that it would outweigh the occasional game where someone rested their players.

It’s a good debate though.

On another note- what do you think of just having a Plus 1 as the playoff, with the Rose winner (usually) meeting the SEC/B12 bowl winner (almost always) for the NC ?

It would make for quite a New Year’s day, knowing the Rose and the SEC/B12 bowls were not only battles of the best 4 conference champions, but also that the winners would be meeting in the NC game 9 times out of 10. Unless it was an unusual year like last year where Bama would have gone over the Rose winner if Bama had won their bowl game, it would make for a very clean and clear playoff system where the polls wouldn’t matter.

I like the idea of simply competing against the other Big 4 conference winners and see who comes out on top. No polls or computers needed.

And with the PAC’s history with the BIG adding an extra level of intensity to the Rose, I’m sure it wouldn’t take long for the SEC-B12 rivalry to really take off- especially if you guys do a regular season scheduling agreement, and that would add a similar extra layer of intensity to the SEC/B12 bowl. It makes it more fun knowing all season that if you win your conference, you’re going to meet the champ of the other conference in your bowl so you keep a close eye on that conference all year. I love the tradition of the Rose and the Sugar and would love to see them function as the semis in the playoffs. They’re two of the traditions worth keeping in CFB.

By: hangtime79

hangtime79 — Thu, 24 May 2012 03:32:40 +0000

@John at MrSEC

John,

I see where this arrangement would benefit the SEC. I see where it would benefit the ACC as an organization and add to its legitimacy. The one thing I don’t see is where this arrangement would benefit FSU, Clemson, G-Tech, V-Tech in such a way as to make them want to stay. Let’s say we go back to 2011 before Mizzou and TAMU joined the SEC would a similar arrangement with the Big 12 stopped Mizzou and TAMU from moving? I would say emphatically no. While the schools did not move directly for money – for Mizzou it was stability for Aggie it was more about parity with UT, the stability provided by larger contracts with ESPN and Fox certainly made it easier to keep the Big 12 together.

To use an analogy, if we’re building a house we need a great roof but before we can have a roof we need a frame. The ACC needs a better roof (legitimacy that such a series would provide), but the frame (significant financial differences between individual school with their regional rivals ie FSU to UF and Clemson to USC) is in bad shape and is what needs shoring up first. The only way to shore that up is to bring the schools to parity in terms of money with their in-state rivales. In the Big 12′s case, WVU and TCU along with Fox and ESPN shored up the frame first and the Champions Bowl just put a brand new roof on the house. Now it looks as strong as ever. The renegotiated contract between the ACC and ESPN did the opposite, it weakened the frame. This series as proposed does not strengthen the frame – it helps the roof. We can put a great new roof on this ACC house, but the frame is in bad shape and it doesn’t matter – the house is destined to fall because the frame can’t support it. Just like the Champions Bowl would not have kept Mizzou and TAMU from leaving the Big 12 this series between the ACC and SEC will not keep the ACC schools from leaving.

There is only one way this expansion and realignment is going to end and that’s if everyone is at or near parity with each other. When the differences between a school jumping conferences is negligible, maybe < 3MM a year, then I believe will see this train slow. Funny enough, as an innovator in finding new ways to capitalize on its product the SEC has contributed to the increased speed and volatility in realignment. The CCG brought about all other CCGs. The SEC Network relationship with ESPN brought about the BTN, the Longhorn Network, and coming soon the Pac 12 network. I’m not saying these are bad things, as a fan I enjoy them, but all of these innovations have increased the pressure to find new revenue sources for each school in order to keep up. How many schools have indoor practice facilities versus 20 years ago? How many stadiums have been renovated and expanded in the last 10? All of these are a part of an arms race and if you don’t have a ton of cash, you are not going to keep up and that’s what is driving most of this realignment.

Yes, you may give the ACC some additional legitimacy with a series like you are discussing, but that doesn’t put FSU on the same footing as UF and that is what’s going to drive the next wave of realignment. Would love to hear what you and your sources think about this theory.

By: Bocktean

Bocktean — Thu, 24 May 2012 03:20:13 +0000

@USCTraveler I think the P12 had 1 win OOC against a Top 25 team last year prior to bowl season – ASU versus Mizzou.

A conference champion playoff model really kills the motivation for stronger OOC. At that point, the goal becomes simple – win your conference. Running the risk of injury in those more rigorous OOC games, especially the ones played late in the season, becomes a real danger to a coach’s career. Imagine Barkley getting injured against ND with a P12 title shot already wrapped up. Why even play the game, unless it’s necessary for recruiting?

By: Quantrillionaire

Quantrillionaire — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:36:37 +0000

@USCTraveler Yes, last year. But one year does not a reputation make.

Also, I too agree that the SEC should do something similar to what the Big 10 and Pac 12 are doing. I tried to illustrate that but my post was deleted. I wanted to show whose idea it was, but apparently linking is a no-no here.
This cross conference game would be great for college football ,I agree.

But like I said, just because the SEC plays 1 less game conference game doesn’t necessarily mean its against a non BCS conference foe. Because many do play BCS foes out of conference already. Aside from that, every school should be able to schedule how they like because it gives schools a chance to play new games against new teams, brush up for the season, get into new recruiting territories and hopefully get a win before the grind of the season. really it all comes out in the end. if you play a weak schedule, people who play better schedules will be ranked above you generally

Also, I disagree on the bottom feeders being interchangeable. Just because two teams finish at the bottom of their respective leagues doesn’t mean they are equal. Would you take either osu/wsu over uk/ole miss?

By: louciaccia

louciaccia — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:51:46 +0000

FSU and Clemson have bigger problems with the ACC than will be solved by playing a game that they already play. It will not help them close the gap any with the SEC schools to take part in an event which will benefit both equally. As if it really would benefit both equally when the SEC wins 10 of 14.

By: poofyhairguy

poofyhairguy — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:51:22 +0000

I think school officials want to catch their breath on expansion, but those in the front office who are involved in SEC Network negotiations know exactly what further expansion into new territories mean ($). The problem is the SEC front office is the tightest ship in college football, and so we can only judge them by their actions. Their recent actions show that the league doesn’t mind a world without the ACC.

On the fan side of things, message boards and websites have been carving up the ACC since 2010. It has never really been a sacred cow. Only the Big 10, SEC and PAC 10 have really avoided talk of losing programs from the start, unless you want to count the dreams of those who want the top 30 programs to leave all their leagues and start a mini NFL. The ACC has long been considered a SEC and Big 10 expansion target; they just avoided the distinction of prey last year by being predators. And they failed at that task, as expansion did not bring them the kind of contract to keep the ACC stable.

The only thing that is different this time is now maybe the Big 12 is able to dine on the ACC, which really shouldn’t surprise anyone when you consider the success each conference has had on the field. At this point the lack of money alone makes the ACC unstable, and unless the SEC wants to really subsidize them (partner networks?) there might not be anything the SEC can do but make sure the property it wants is not taken by weaker leagues in this big game of monopoly.

The real fun to be had then is to figure out who the two finalists for the SEC acceptance award are: VT is an obvious favorite for one spot, and don’t tell this Aggie that politics blocks that because everyone who took that position was wrong last time. But who is the other?

UNC is my clear winner. NCst is still pretty good. Duke? Maryland? I don’t know, I am a layman when it comes to this stuff.

But even a layman can tell the ACC is doomed, and the SEC stands to benefit.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:20:01 +0000

@USCTraveler

Obviously there’s a flipside… that’s why we said IF — in italics — the SEC truly wants to slow expansion. And from what we hear, most everyone does.

Go back a year and that was NOT what we were hearing. I’m not talking about what’s said publicly, I’m talking about what we’re hearing from people in SEC administrations and athletic departments. They say they’d prefer a slow down.

IF that’s true, then this would be a way to slow things down, make more money, and add more BCS-level games to the schedule.

Thanks for reading,
John

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:16:46 +0000

FYI…

If you curse in a post, it will get deleted.

If you publish a link to someone else’s site as an ad — something we don’t do on other sites’ comment sections — it will also get deleted.

Too many folks come here and push their own sites.

Thanks for reading,
John

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:13:36 +0000

travgt01…

1. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

2. If UK and Duke are already scheduled to play each other in 2015, then it makes even more sense.

And it’s “your” idea, not “you’re” idea. Typing in a rush all day long, I slip on that occasionally, too.

John

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:37:53 +0000

@USCTraveler Texas and A&M need to play though. I doubt Texas could avoid the game if a Big12/SEC deal like this was made. Texas hasn’t been that dominant lately anyway. The last 2 season were pretty average if not bad and OU has made the BCS title game 4 times(I think) since 2000 compared to Texas’ 2 times. And that aspect of it doesn’t really matter. These things are cyclical. Some of the teams that are on top right now won’t be in a few years and vice versa. Texas wasn’t much until Mack Brown showed up and Bama had a “lost decade” until Saban arrived. You never know when the landscape will shift again.

We had a home and home with OU a few years ago and it was a great series so I’d like to see that one again out of the gate, but I wouldn’t want to play OU every year.

By: USCTraveler

USCTraveler — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:26:16 +0000

@AllTideUp @Quantrillionaire

I like that format but think Bama-Texas and LSU-OU are better matchups in the long-term.

Bama and Texas are the two dominant teams in their conferences and just met in the NC game a few years back. That’s must-see tv.

Texas isn’t going to want to play A+M anyway.

By: USCTraveler

USCTraveler — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:24:05 +0000

@Quantrillionaire

3 teams in the top 25 ?

How about 3 teams in the top 7 last year ?

I agree that at one time the PAC was by far the weakest conference, which is one of the reasons USC was always looking to schedule tough OOC games.

But the differences between the conferences are not as great as they are made out to be. That’s one of the reasons I want to see a champions only playoff, so we can really see who the best teams re, since most don’t play each other.

The bottom feeders of the conferences are pretty much interchangeable. If OSU and WSU were switched with UK and Ole Miss I doubt it would make much of a difference either way ?

The SEC has got more depth in the middle, but is it as great as advertised ? UGA lost to Boise last year in Atlanta.

South Carolina’s big accomplishments were beating UGA and UF (who was terrible last year).

ASU beat Mizzou last year.

The strength of the SEC isn’t so overwhelming that they should need to play multiple directional schools every year.

I’d love to see a 9-game SEC schedule and an SEC-B12 agreement because it would mean a lot more great games to watch.

Hopefully we eventually have a superconference playoff where OOC losses won’t matter in getting to the playoffs and we can see everyone playing great OOC games again. I miss the games between USC and SEC teams.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:13:58 +0000

@Quantrillionaire I’m thinking it might break down to be something like this as well. It’s too convenient that most of the current ACC rivals that the SEC schools have are the precise ones that could move to the Big 12. If there’s a break-up though I think both leagues could end up at 16. VT and maybe NC State heading for the SEC. I think Miami and one other mystery school will end up in the Big 12 in addition to what you have here.

*** denotes traditional rivals

Alabama – Oklahoma
Arkansas – Oklahoma State
Auburn -Texas Tech
Florida – Florida State***
Georgia – Georgia Tech***
Kentucky – Lousiville***
LSU – TCU
Ole Miss – ???
Missouri – Kansas***
MIss State – Iowa State
NC State – Kansas State
South Carolina – Clemson***
Tennessee – Miami
Texas A&M – Texas***
Vanderbilt – Baylor
Virginia Tech – West Virginia***And you could always change the rotation a little bit. Aside from a handful of these that are traditional rivals, you could flip the match-ups every 2 years to keep things more interesting.

By: USCTraveler

USCTraveler — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:12:42 +0000

@Quantrillionaire

3 teams in the top 25 ?

How about 3 teams in the top 7 last year ?

By: Quantrillionaire

Quantrillionaire — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:34:36 +0000

@USCTraveler USC is the exception to the rule. those “weak” ooc schedules you’re referring to from the big 10 and sec is because the competition is much stiffer in both leagues especially concerning the SEC. Don’t believe it? check the strength of schedule. check the rankings every year. Pac 10 teams have a hard time getting more than 3 teams in the top 25. Don’t talk down on the schedule of these other leagues when you’re league is pulling up the rear on the field with the big 4 conferences.

By: USCTraveler

USCTraveler — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:20:36 +0000

John-

The flip side would be if the SEC doesn’t want to slow down realignment. Remember when the SEC wasn’t looking to expand but Texas A+M was “too good to pass up” ?

If FSU, Clemson and GT go to the B12, then VT would certainly become available and “too good to pass up”. And with those schools gone, NC State might be able to get away from UNC.

Then an SEC=B12 scheduling agreement becomes a no-brainer, as you’d have multiple SEC-B12 games already on the schedule every year.

And as far as non-conference schedules go regarding USC- not only does USC play Notre Dame every year, USC has actually never played an FCS school. Neither has UCLA or Notre Dame. Every year USC plays all its games against BCS teams.

I’m excited for USC’s OOC schedule in 2017 and 2018 after the BIG agreement kicks in- Notre Dame, Texas and a BIG team (most likely Michigan or OSU).

And if USC can get a BIG school to agree (I think they’re talking to Michigan now) they’ll have Notre Dame, Texas A + M, and Michigan (or whoever) in 2015 and 2016.

A lot of people want to see their team play a soft OOC schedule because they’re worried about losing, but USC has always played strong OOC teams, and I love seeing those matchups. I figure if USC is good enough to beat all those teams, they’ll be a lock to be # 1 or #2 and playing for the NC and if they can’t beat them, then they weren’t good enough to win a title that year anyway, but I got to see a bunch of great games.

I’d much prefer that than the type of weak OOC schedules that a lot of BIG and SEC teams have.

You don’t need to load up on FCS schools to be successful. In fact, I think a big factor in USC’s success over the years has been a willingness to play anyone anywhere, and to seek out tough OOC matchups.

Playing at Bama and Oklahoma back in the old days was amazing.

And in the last decade, we saw that opening the season in Columbus, Auburn or Fayettenam is a great way to test your team and get them used to high-pressure games in front of hostile crowds. I think this translates into success in bowl games, as the players are ready for the pressure, and USC’s bowl record and National Championships speak for themselves.

I give Bama credit for playing teams like VT, PSU and Michigan, but I’d love to see Bama-Texas every year as part of an SEC-B12 agreement.

LSU-OU would also be amazing, and on down the line.

PS- the fact that UF hasn’t left the state of FL for an OOC game in 25 years or whatever is a complete embarrassment. It would be nice to see them playing OSU or WVU.

Keep up the good work John.

By: MoKelly

MoKelly — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:01:29 +0000

I understand that trying to save the ACC is the idea by giving them some additional credibility. However, I for one would love to see Mizzou/Kansas and Texas/A&M back on the schedule. Looks to me like the ACC needs a richer TV contract to save their league. I assume having an SEC opponent at their home games would help in getting more TV money?

By: jlynch1976

jlynch1976 — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:01:15 +0000

The writing is on the wall. This new agreement between the SEC and the Big 12 means that we are going to have a true plus-one and not a 4-team playoff. After the bowls are done, they will select the two “best” teams to play in the championship game. Most years these teams will be the winners of the Rose Bowl and the SEC/Big 12 Champions Bowl.

By: kentatm

kentatm — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:36:39 +0000

I have wanted the SEC to do this ever since the Pac12/Big10 thing was announced. Having a series with the ACC would also help avoid rematches in the SEC/Big12 bowl game.

By: TrailGator

TrailGator — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:36:25 +0000

Wow John, when are you running for Emporer of College Football? This is a great idea. It does seem like a natural fit, right down to the stadiums.
Keep pushing this idea. Thanks, Trail Gator

By: travgt01

travgt01 — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:35:30 +0000

So you’re idea is for UK to play Duke twice in the same year? Brilliant!

By: Holtbru

Holtbru — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:24:43 +0000

Well, I surely LIKE this IDEA !!

BRUCE

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:19:01 +0000

@RussH

The idea was to slow down expansion IF the SEC really wants to do so. That would mean keeping the NC and VA schools out for at least a while.

We realize, however, that all of these conferences could shift tomorrow. But if the SEC wants to slow the train, then an SEC-ACC partnership is one way of possibly doing so.

Thanks for reading,
John

By: RussH

RussH — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:07:48 +0000

I would suggest a combination of both ideas.

SEC East plays the ACC 1 weekend and the SEC West plays the Big 12 another weekend.

Mizzou / Kansas
Texas / A&M

This would also allow for the possibility of
NC State / NC (assuming 1 moves to the SEC)
VT / Virginia (assuming 1 moves SEC)

Along with the rest of the games as listed, most likely on a rotating basis.

This would be the ultimate home-run for the SEC in marginalizing both conferences.