MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Georgia coach Mark Richt doesn’t think the SEC is in any rush to add teams.
He figures other power conferences are more likely to expand so they can have two six-team divisions and a league championship game, a la the SEC.
“There’s some leagues that might be trying to get to that,” Richt said on Thursday’s SEC coaches teleconference. “That would make more sense to me than trying to get these super conferences. You don’t get to play everybody when you do that. It’s almost like two different leagues when you do that.
The SEC certainly didn’t start the expansion talk, but commissioner Mike Slive has made it clear the league that has produced the last four BCS national champions in football won’t let other conferences pass it up.
He said Monday that “we’re not going to relinquish our role as one of the premier conferences.”
Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott indicated when he took the job last year he intended to look at expansion for the league, which is negotiating new TV deals early next year. The Big Ten announced in December it was considering expansion.
The SEC has lucrative TV deals and a thriving football championship game that generated $14.3 million in 2008. (Revenue from last year’s game won’t be released until the league’s upcoming spring meetings.)
Alabama coach Nick Saban’s team has played in the last two SEC title games, and he coached in the Big Ten at Michigan State.
“We did expansion years ago to get to 12 teams so we could have two divisions and a conference championship game,” Saban said. “I think that format is great for college football. It’s great for the fans. Our SEC championship game is a fantastic venue for our team to play in. But I also think, like when I was in the Big Ten we always talked about adding another team so we could get to 12 and make two divisions.
“I don’t know the extent that people are talking about expansion. But if they’re going to go to 16 teams, I think there would be a lot of people interested.”
The SEC has, after all, won six Associated Press national titles since expanding to 12 teams in 1992.
“I think most of college football is looking for a format like we have, to allow for a championship game that allows them to ... play for postseason honors,” Miles said. “It will be interesting. I think it’s always a difficult thing to expand and make the schedule fair. Hopefully it won’t happen quickly in this league.”
Vanderbilt coach Bobby Johnson isn’t dwelling on the issue much but figures the coaches will get an update from Slive soon.
“He’s been on the forefront of just about everything as it came down the pike,” Johnson said. “He was there for the TV contract with ESPN. He knows what’s going on, and I trust that he’ll let us know at spring meetings what he’s thinking and what our situation is. It’s a conference that would certainly attract some other schools if they’re interested in tough competition. It’ll be interesting to watch and see how it progresses.”
Tennessee 69, South Carolina 57 men's…
Vanderbilt 65, Tennessee 47, Jan. 24…
Signing day celebration at Neyland…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 36
cjones72 writes:
all conferences having 16 teams would be a great way to have the playoffs that almost everyone wants . They could have the division championship games and then the winners of all the divisions could have the playoffs . with the final 2 playing for the national championship .
V_O_L_S_GO_VOLS_GO writes:
Nice thoughts, but unfortunately the almighty (or not so almighty) dollar rules the minds and pockets of the NCAA and the university Presidents. There's no way we're going to a playoff system any time soon, although, it does make a hella lot more sense than the stupid B.S., I mean, BCS system we have now. What a joke.
cjones72 writes:
Yeah i know but the way i sit here and figured it up they could make plenty of money with a playoff system only they would have to have 15 teams per conference and go from the 12 conferences we have now to 8 .
Vol4Him writes:
Last time I checked the SEC has won 8 National Championships since expanding in 1992.
1993- Alabama
1996- Florida
1998- Tennessee
2002- LSU
2006- Florida
2007- LSU
2008- Florida
2009- Alabama
Again, the KNS staff has done some poor leg work on this article.
CoverOrange writes:
Not to mention Auburn in 2004 shoulda-woulda-coulda.
The link between expansion and National Championships seems tenuous at best.
scott_m99 writes:
You are right vol4him...they must have been referring to the BCS era which started in 98. Maybe they should clarify
rockytopatl writes:
That's an AP story, not KNS. Wire services are supposed to get it right.
Halls3 writes:
I tend to disagree with you. As of now ESPN basically has all the rights to all but I believe 3 bowls as is. I believe in the near future we will see a playoff b/c ESPN will pony up the money to the NCAA to have the tv rights to the playoff which will increase their revenue long term. I don't think the BCS system would be bad either if they added 2 more components to it, one being the AP Poll & the other being an online fan tabulated vote. Personally I'd like to see a 12, 16, or 24 team playoff & then the losers of each round receive a bowl bid with the NCG being in one of the four BCS bowls like it used to be. I'd also like to see 12 to 16 other bowls in which they have a 4 team playoff the first week of the national championship playoff to determine who earns the right to play in the 12 to 16 bowls to create competition & fan interest, therefore increasing tv revenue & increasing money into the NCAA's hands, as well as ESPN & the colleges as well. These extra games would create the revenue necessary to axe these garbage bowl games that no one cares about & create a playoff/bowl system anyone could agree with.
TommyJack writes:
'04 hosing of Auburn was epic. And I don't even like'em.
crimsonviper writes:
Thanks Miss Cleo 10point0.
CoverOrange writes:
It's penciled in...with eraser standing by.
rclarkvols#224537 writes:
I believe a playoff would be a hugh mistake. Football isn't like basketball in that most fans are only interested in their school. If Tennessee isn't in it I'm not interested. Schools like Kentucky and Vandy may as well give up football because getting to a bowl game won't be enough and becoming one of the 16 teams for them will be impossible. More coaches will get fired for not making the playoffs.
A simply solution would be to leave the bowls as they are and have a 4 team playoff with 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Play these 2 games 2 weeks after the SEC championship game and the final game the same as it is now. That way the time frame for the season doesn't change and there isn't a month layoff for the championship game participants.
Just one man's opinion.
dvhill100 writes:
Make the plus one, and you have your wish. Stupid not to do that. People will complain, but no matter how big a playoff you have, someone will be left out and whine.
pdhuff#552644 writes:
Here's to hoping we don't witness many hosings this fall.
orangecountyvols writes:
Tennessee to the ACC?????????
Dream on. Now that I've read that, it's not necessary to read the comics.
That post ...........from a comedian !
richvol writes:
I think the expansion to a league with 16 teams would definately hurt Tennessee's chances of winning the SEC again. The key is recruiting and we enjoy an advantage of selling playing in the SEC to recruits in border states now. If Georgia Tech,Clemson,Miami or Florida State are added then it just makes it that much harder to compete for kids that want to play in the SEC.
Everybody would probably like to see Texas added and Texas A&M would be the likely other addition. That would be a more palatable choice for us since we don't sign many players from Texas anyway but it could hurt us some in Louisanna,Arkansas and Mississippi as it would make it more attractive for players from those states to go to Texas.
I'm not so sure this is a good idea for Tennessee.
striker4545 writes:
A playoff system. Id love, have always wanted it. And, it would be Tennessee's best chance to ever win it all again.
That being said, we alreay have a college playoff if you are in the SEC. Its called the regular season.
The problem that most dont seem to realize is that the SEC is already a playoff system as it stands. Every week you can survive or get kicked back. One loss and you still have a slight chance of being in the mix. Two loses and its playing for pride. A two loss team in theory could make the SEC Championship and if ALL the Stars allign could make the BCS Championship, but it wont happen folks, the odds with the new coming format would be near impossible.
Its as I have mentioned on blogs prior. Everyone seems to mention dumping bottom dweller as well, say, Vandy, Kentucky, Ms State, etc. In exchange for more heavy hitters, I.E. a V. Tech, Miami, Fl State, etc.
As for being a Tennessee fan and loving this. If we add 4 or more great programs we will take big steps back in recruiting, and more L's during the season. We will be excited to have 8 win seasons, and glory days will always be known as the 1990's (which they may be forever anyway).
Either way, it will be fun...Just dont expect any undefeated seasons anytime soon, if EVER again.
mrvol2u writes:
Leave the game alone!!!! Playoffs will do nothing but make the regular seasons games meaningless. College football is the KING!!! Why? Because of the regular season in-state and cross boarder games that are played with passion.
The NFL had a great season going last year and then ended in a THUD. Once the teams made the playoffs, the starters were pulled and can you say BORING.
The BCS may not be perfect but it has done a pretty good job so far. I have had season tickets and have watched many a game that was great football that would not have been played under a playoff system.
I know many will disagree, but that is my opinion. I get fired up when we play Vandy because I am from the Middle Tennessee area, when we play "Awwburn", because I have many friends that root for them. I have extended family ties who are big Gamecock fans, that has been real fun since the Visor has shown up. N. Dame, UCLA, and even the pac-10 games we play are more significant under the present system then they would be under a playoff format.
Leave the game alone. Lets play some football!!!
GO VOLS!!!!!
gainesville_vol writes:
I believe you are wrong. I believe the current MNC Bowl Championship concept proves you wrong. If only the fans of the participating schools were watching the MNC game, you would have rating equivalent to regular season games.
In fact, I believe that the entire viewership of the playoffs would be double or triple (or more) over the viewership of the bowls. Casual college football fans will only watch their favorite school or maybe favorite conference. But a playoff would pull in even more fans than watch the NCAA basketball tournament. Season after season, college football has higher ratings across the board than college basketball.
Plus, just like you have an NIT tournament right now, you continue to have bowl games for those teams with 6 wins that do not qualify for the tournament. Everyone wins (except as noted below).
The real issue is that the Conference Commissioners and College Presidents of the BCS conferences do not want to share the proceeds with all Div 1 schools like they have to in basketball. They are okay with Notre Dame getting $4.9 million and a non-BCS school getting $13.5 million, because that leaves them splitting $90.8 million (~85%). If they split with all FBS conferences (120 schools), they split 54% of the revenues. Plus, they do not want to give the non-BCS schools the financial means to compete equally with them.
mrvol2u writes:
Gainesvillvol, you make some interesting points but I disagree with you on some points.
The bowls viewership would be higher than a playoff for a couple of reasons. 1) They mainly happen on Jan. 1st when most people are off work. I have attended many bowl parties that included far more casual fans than die-hard football fans. The N.C. game does generate a large audience but for the same reason. It is an event. A reason to party. The final game of the playoff would be the only game to generate the same "event" status. I am a huge college football fan but I can honestly say I might skip early playoff games.
2) College football has higher ratings than college basketball as you stated and there is a reason. The playoff has rendered a good portion of the regular season meaningless. A football playoff would do the same. See the NFL. I think once you lose those viewers you get them back for the championship game only, maybe.
Leave the game alone it is great as is. Once they mess with it they will not stop. See NCAA basketball. The NCAA id fixing to ruin it.
mikec1000000 writes:
The SEC has seven AP titles since 1992. LSU was BCS champion in 2003, but USC won the AP crown that season.
volboy81 writes:
Any conference shifting should begin with kicking Peabody out of the SEC and sending them to Conference USA, where they belong along side Tiger High and other light-weights.
Ralph_Crampton writes:
In my opinion it appears that possibly the big ten is angling around to nab Texas...with its huge population of crazed football fans..I know Missouri has been mentioned at times and recently Texas...be alert Mr. Slive...Texas fits perfectly in the Sec. Of course the big national TV networks is also greatly interested where Texas lands..this is where the huge money lies. Texas is a southern state anyway.
tnaseevol writes:
VGVG....you were right the first time!
GBO
gainesville_vol writes:
I agree with you on the basketball tournament. Going to 96 teams is ridiculous and kinda removes any arguments that the NCAA has about a football playoff (too much time out of class, too much travel, etc.).
However, the NFL TV ratings do not back up your point. Last year, the regular season games averaged 16.1 million viewers. The divisional games averaged 20 million, the conference championship games almost 50 million. I don't have the Super Bowl numbers.
The regular season ratings were at an all time high, so the playoffs have not hurt the regular season viewership.
I do somewhat agree with you on travel to multiple games, but that will simply make it more affordable for more fans to go. Right now, you have to be very well connected or have lots of money to go to the MNC game. I would love to be able to pay face value and go see UT in a first round game; I can't (don't want to) afford $1000 for a ticket.
However, even if the game attendance did go down, and even if the TV numbers went down, I want the championship settled on the field, not be a computer (or poll) selecting what they deem the best two schools are. Has there ever been a BCS championship game that inarguably included the best two teams? No, not even last year with UA and Texas.
In a playoff, would we argue about who the 16th team is? Absolutely.
Does it minimize the regular season? Not in my opinion. Do you think Duke/NC regular season games have been negated in any way? If you think so, you must not watch college basketball and/or claim to be a fan. What about UT/UK? Or UT/FL? Or this years UT/Kansas? None of those games ended up with an, "Oh, they are meaningless!"
I have gone through this many times. I can name team after team that should have deserved a chance to prove that they are the best team in football at the end of the season. I could right a book about it. A playoff would not necessarily reward the team that played the best for 13 (or 14) games. But it would determine who the best team was at the end of the season. Isn't that what we want? Who improves over the course of the year, not who might have been best in week 1.
I predict that we will eventually have a playoff system for college football, Div 1. I hope it is the same as Div 1A, II and III, i.e., a 16 team playoff. When that happens, I am confident that UT/UF will have just as much bearing, attendance, and viewership as it does now.
mrvol2u writes:
Gainesvillevol you have done your homework. I wonder what the tv ratings were for the last 2 to 3 weeks of the NFL when the starters were pulled?
My point on diminishing the regular season has to do with things like not scheduling because it might result in not making the playoffs. Taking out starters when a playoff berth is assured. The UT-Vandy game would be null if UT secures a playoff spot the week before and decides to play only the 2nd or 3rd team. Likewise the Okla.-Texas game or any other season ending heated contest.
Sure some teams schedule weak opponents under the BCS but there is a cost. Even if you win, you take a hit on schedule strength and sometimes style points. Lose any game and it could cost you.
Playoffs are not a bad idea it is just not the best way to go in my opinion. I like what college football is today. I just don't think you can improve on what we have today. A 1+1 might be ok but thats about all. I am not against change because I was for the SEC east and west divisions with the SEC champ. game. I just think we should leave the golden goose alone.
Like I said before it is just one humble fan's opinion.
gainesville_vol writes:
If anyone wants to continue the discussion, I would offer:
1. A team with a single loss to a UF or UT would be better off than a team with a win over Sisters of the poor.
2. I predict that IF the NCAA sends a regular message that the football version of the RPI is used, then teams would schedule for better opponents, not worse. SEC basketball was given a message by the NCAA last year to play better schools; IMO UF only got in this year because they beefed up their schedule. We won't talk about Miss St, they should have been there. But we are still talking about the last team in. If UF knew that an early season loss to Miami would not keep them from competing for a true national championship (plus the HUGE increase in revenues for CFB), you would see them playing every year. Right now, no major college football team plays more than one serious big time program out of conference.
3. If your conference is weak, you only get your champion in (see Big East last year). If it is really strong, you might get three (or four0 teams in to the 16. There have been years where UF/UT/UGA/UA/LSU/ . . . all had one or two losses. Especially if you lose on the road, why should you be prevented from playing for a national championship. What if last years SECCG was 31-30, why shouldn't both UF and UA be considered for the national championship over Texas (who almost lost to Nebraska), UCinn (who played NO ONE), etc?
4. Unlike the NFL, there is no mathematical "guarantee" to the playoffs other than to win your conference/division. If UGA gets to the championship game with 3 losses and wins, great they make the playoffs. If they get there with 2 and lose, they may not. But even in basketball, conference championships mean something. So UT, rest your players against Vandy and Kentucky at your own risk! Nine wins does not guarantee you a chance to enter the playoff as an at-large.
If no one cares about the discussion, just say so and I will put my soap box back into the laundry room.
BIVOLAR_BEAR writes:
I say gather only the programs that have a minimum of 500 wins, make a BCS league out of those schools with divisions being regional..Bingo, a playoff for the title..The other schools can play in the secondary bowls..Just a thought..
John_10065 writes:
I think there is too much tradition to pull in the teams like Texas and Texas A&M. They would do very well in the SEC but tradition would stop that from happening. That would have to be a package deal also. You can't take one without the other.
There is maybe one team on the rest of your list that could hang with even Vanderbilt year end and year out. If we bring in another team, it has to be competitive through out the whole conference.
There isn't one...yet...that resides east of the Missisippi (with the exception of the Ozark State), south of the Ohio, and west of Appalachia that can compete all the time in the SEC (FL excluded because that is how it is). To me, being an SEC school means that you have to be geographically confined within a certain region. Go too far west, you are in the plains or southwest. Go too far North, well call it what you will, it isn't the SE. If you go too far east, now you are in the round ball country of the Not-So-Big East and ACC.
Louisville is a joke in football most years, they should have stayed in Conference USA. They moved for basketball reasons. South Florida has not been powerful enough for enough years to say they deserve to go to the SEC. Clemson is off and on but I wouldn't call them a SEC school. GA Tech might think about going this way.
I think GT has the potential to be a good SEC school but also I think their existing conference in football is over-rated. They would only consider coming because of UGA being an in-state rival and they would have to weigh the benefits of being a SEC FB school versus an ACC BB school. But it would be nice to have a charter member of the SEC back in the fold.
WVU would be a good fit but that would also be breaking tradition and leave the in-state rivals being out of conference games and those are GREAT games for the real FB fans. Part of me wants the Blue Raiders in state to get it together and leave the Sun Conference but they are barely filling the seats enough to stay in division one. I can dream can't I?
Colliervol writes:
I personally see no reason to expand when we already have the best football conference in the country. And make no mistake, that's all this expansion talk is about anyway. None of the other sports (including basketball) amount to a hill of beans in this discussion.
I can't blame the other conferences for trying to catch up to the SEC though. When you ain't the lead dog, the view is all the same.
AtLeastMyTeamHasPerfectSeasons writes:
What makes the SEC think that those pizz-poor referees can correctly call EVEN MORE SEC games when a league with 12 teams was too much?
RespectTradition writes:
Championships matter. I like winning all the time, but I would gladly take a loss or two in the regular season if I can win a NC. Fair trade.
The reason I bring this up is complaints about coasting on a late game or two if a team has qualified for a playoff. I say so what. If we coast in a meaningless game against Vanderbilt or Kentucky in order to have save players for a meaningful playoff game, then that is ok. I prefer teams to try hard all the time, but realistically, it is not important. That is why you pull your all-american qb in the third quarter when you are up by 30. That is why you kneel on the ball late in the game.
I don't consider any games meaningless per se. However, if we could have a NC that is decided on the field and no one's opinion or equation or formula or computer or mother-in-law affected the champion, then I would gladly make that compromise.
The BCS sucks. No doubt. The only good thing about it, is that it is worlds better than the old system where some reporters got together and voted on it. Sure, how they pick the two teams to play each other may be lame, but at least the winner of the game is the winner. (does anyone even look to see who the AP picked anymore?)
Go Vols!
Nuthinbutorange writes:
I may be mistaken in this, but I'm fairly sure that Georgia Tech was a charter member of the SEC. It left the conference because it felt it wasn't a good academic fit. I'm not sure that they would be welcome in a conference they gave up to go to the "more scholarly" ACC. JMO.
Huttdawg100 writes:
I agree. I feel the best way to settle the issue is the Plus 1 format. The 2009 national championship would have been decided by winners of Boise State vs TCU and Alabama vs Texas. Alabama would play Boise State for the National Championship. This format ensures that each week in November remains as relevant as each week in September and October.
I don't want to see the regular season watered down by a playoff. In basketball, they let 65 teams in the tournament, but only 10 teams really have a viable chance to win. The regular season got horrible ratings even for the huge rivalries like Duke/Carolina. I only watched college basketball when we were playing. After the Michigan State game, I started preparing for football season. College Football does so well because of two main reasons: we get to see the stars develop, and every week of the regular season matters. Does anybody really think that in a 16 team playoff, the 16 seed would really have a chance to win a National Championship? If they were that good, they would have won more games, and would've been ranked higher.
AtlantaTide writes:
The same God that you will be kneeling before un dia, small man.
Ralph_Crampton writes:
If big ten or anyother conference starts to expand...C'mon Mr. Sly don;t allow them to grab Texas, Texas A&m., Oklahoma or Okla. St., these four teams would be perfect at add to the SEC and than call the conference THE BIG SOUTH CONFERENCE. It seems we are going in that direction...remember Texas is the BIG PRIZE with their millions and millions of fans and TV sets. Some think the BIG Ten could grab Oklahoma, Okla. St., Texas A&M and the Texas Longhorns along with Missouri in one swoop and call the BIG CENTRAL CONFERENCE. They possibly could or would over look Okla. St. For Missouri in order to make it a 16-team conference.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.