clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Big Blue Nation Linkapalooza: SEC Expansion Monday

There are suddenly a flood of SEC expansion articles, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this was all the rage only a couple of weeks ago.  The good news, at least from my point of view, is that there are some articles suggesting that Texas A&M to the SEC may not be such a good thing after all, and that SEC expansion might just do more harm than good.

So let's get right to them:

  • Texas A & M, The SEC, and The Tyranny Of The Undefeated
    I find this to be very perceptive:

    The rules of college football mean that dominating a weak conference is infinitely better than doing OK in a strong conference. Beating up on cupcakes is worth more than getting a huge September OOC victory. How many times has Florida crushed Florida Southwest A+M State in late November without anybody batting an eye? Sure, some people may clutch their tongues and stroke their beards and say "What's to be done with this cupcake victory?"

    If Texas A&M does move to the SEC, it will be moving into a much tougher spot than it is now, and you can't find two relatively easy victories in the SEC, let alone five.

  • Will expanding the SEC badly damage it?
    I think this argument is fairly compelling, although probably irrelevant.

    Via Duke Basketball Report.
  • SEC and Texas A&M grinding out details?

    SEC does not, should not need Texas A&M | The Advertiser |
    I agree with the article title, but this?

    But seriously, if and when the SEC does expand, it should add a major, national football power on the level of an Alabama, LSU, Florida or Auburn. It does not need to add schools suffering from elite envy, which is the case with Texas A&M in regards to Texas.

    Seriously, is that what we need?  Apparently, this guy never read the article about the "Tyranny of the undefeated" I linked earlier.