Dryden;1953818; said:
If this is big news, it's only big to the Texas A&M leadership, because the rest of us could see where this was going to go 14 months ago.
That factor among others is where the logic from that article completely breaks down. I would call that whole article sour grapes. A&M decided to stay in the conference knowing the LSN was coming. From my perspective not much has changed since last summer to all of the sudden outrage Aggie. Last summer when everything was going down, it was known Texas was on the verge of launching their own network. Obviously the dollar terms weren't known, but we knew it would exist soon and they'd get at least one game somehow.
The fact the previous contract didn't allow for teams to telecast 1 game lead me to believe at the time that either 1) ABC would move a game or games to LSN or 2) Assuming ESPN won a bid they'd buy the games off of Fox. Either way you are going through a process that doesn't limit you to 1 game. Judging by the internet's response to the 2 game announcement, I don?t think anyone was shocked that Texas is getting more than 1 game.
the author comes across as seeking to find some way or reason to justify that the SEC would still be interested in expanding in addition to the bogus television argument. I?ll address the TV issue first. The whole notion that the conference would add two teams because they are less than thrilled how their television deal ended up working (a record deal with everyone wanting to kiss Slive's rear-end at the time) is laughable at best. You don?t undertake something that could last 50+ years because you are mildly upset about revenue for the next 5 to 10 years. Plus it is unclear how exactly additional teams would be handled per undisclosed terms with CBS and ESPN.
As for the SEC NCAA issue? That conference has historically had NCAA issues. It moves on from them and it continues to thrive. 1 or 2 teams may temporarily go down to the hammer, but others will rise (see Saban turning around Alabama after NCAA issues). That conference is so deep that I don?t think it is that much to worry about.
It is pretty clear that ever since last summer there has been a strong SEC support movement on their message boards. That said it was equally as clear that their administration, AD, and likely ultimately their boosters (as the admin and AD answer to them) weren't as enthralled with the notion. A&M benefits from quite a bit in the Big XII. Quite a few games in the state of Texas, natural rivals, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they rode it out there until the end. It is quite possible that Texas, Oklahoma, or A&M makes a first strike move at some point, but in many ways those schools might be less likely to act. The two have strong ties to UT, and all 3 are guaranteed to find a spot in a solid BCS conference should it hit the fan in the Big XII.
I?m still not convinced that A&M has a standing standalone invitation to the SEC or that the SEC is even interested in expanding right now. Slive was no doubt exploring options last summer. That said, what we thought was going to happen last summer and what actually happened are quite different. It was the general consensus that the Big Ten wouldn't stop with one team, that they?d go to 14 or 16 for the Big Ten Network and if that happened the Pac-12 and the SEC would likely need to act quick and lock up the solid teams out there. Conference Armageddon was obviously averted for now. Despite what happened with the SEC and their last television negotiations, (and actually nothing bad happened they got paid a record amount. Others just happened to get paid more lately) that conference is arguably still the most preeminent conference in college athletics. It isn't like the Big Ten who had a crooked number and was one short of a conference championship game.
