Doesn't necessarily mean they will. Maryland and Rutgers have also been getting obscene amounts of B1G money for several years. How's their build back going? And Texas has spent champagne amounts of money for Boone's Farm results. Same with Aggie when you get down to it.
@WhosYourDawggy gets on my case about me pointing out that the big 2 conferences consist of several charter members that don't "carry" their load and haven't really turned their obscene amounts of money into winning athletic programs. They've been getting Ohio State and Bama level money and with results less than many G5 schools have gotten for a lot less investment.
Remember the Useless Eaters of the Third Reich? I guess the big dogs in the B1G and the SEC are more humanitarian and benevolent than the Third Reich. They don't mind feeding Useless Eaters.
I don't mean to get on your case, I just observed you have something for pointing out that the Vandy's of the world haven't had success even though they get the money they do.
I'll explain why - wins and losses are a zero sum game. The 16 teams in the SEC can't all take their money, invest it and suddenly all 16 teams are 8-4, 9-3, 10-2, 11-1 and 12-0 every year. For every win you have to have a loss. I am stating the obvious, but your position seems to ignore that. If Vandy suddenly goes 9-3, then USCjr, or UTjr, or Ole Miss has to do worse. Vandy winning 9 games mean 9 other teams have a loss that they normally don't have.
In the context of conference expansion, it means that the conferences aren't going to get rid of all the "bad" teams and bring in good teams unless they want the equivalent of the NFC east where all the teams had a losing record a few years ago, or where there is such parity that 6-6 gets you into the playoff. You have to have some lower teams, and if you have them - Vandy, Mizzou (who has been better), Ole Miss and MSU (go up and down), and USCjr - you don't get rid of them. You would only bring them in if they have enough economic benefit in hoops - it's why Kansas, Duke, Louisville, and Ga Tech even has a shot at getting in the B1G or SEC. If we are going to bring in 3 more good teams, maybe we bring in one football stinker because of their value in hoops.
I hope I made my point, but imagine the following conference:
Bama
UGA
LSU
OU
TX
ATM
UF
AU
tOSU
UM
PSU
USC
ND
FSU
Clemson
Miami
This is what you advocate for ... all the teams are ones that have won NCs, spend money, and want to win. Which of those teams is your 1-8 or 0-9 IC team? Or, is your best team 6-3 in conference? And the worst 3-6? FSU at 1-8? AU at 1-8? Do you think teams like AU, FSU, PSU want to get rid of Vandy and NW and Duke? Not a chance ... you will always have bottom teams, and no one wants to be one of those. The mid-tier teams would never vote to get rid of Vandy ... they don't want to become Vandy and someone would.
As a Vandy grad I've recently wondered if it would be a blessing if the SEC politely told us to play football somewhere else. We can stay for other sports, and they will give us money enough to stay competitive in those sports. But we are out for football. So we go and get:
Vandy
Duke
SMU
NW
Stanford
Tulane
Cal
UVa
Wake
BC
GaTech
Purdue
Syracuse
And make up the Brainiac Conference. We would get some money, but not much. But I think I would go to some of those games every year, and might get excited when we win the conference from time to time. I don't know how that would work, but if we were ever asked to leave I would hope we would do that.
www.cbssports.com
