The SEC wanted to expand. Top targets were Texas and Florida State, but then things started going wrong.
The Longhorns balked and the SEC vowed to get even by destabilizing the Southwest Conference. They then took Arkansas who at one time in the past had threatened to leave the SWC for the Big 8. The foundation of the SEC which had been rocked with scandal started to crumble.
In the east, Florida State which had long been thought to be a SEC "lock", opted to join the ACC. The SEC still looking for a partner in the east took South Carolina, a program who had struggled since leaving the ACC.
That's all to say this: The one program that seems to be in the wrong place as a result of the last round of realignment is Missouri. The one thing that seems to be keeping 4 x 16 from happening is how to divide the Big 12. Maybe Missouri and Nebraska will have to be reshuffled to get things to come out even.

(05-26-2014 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC wanted to expand. Top targets were Texas and Florida State, but then things started going wrong.
The Longhorns balked and the SEC vowed to get even by destabilizing the Southwest Conference. They then took Arkansas who at one time in the past had threatened to leave the SWC for the Big 8. The foundation of the SEC which had been rocked with scandal started to crumble.
In the east, Florida State which had long been thought to be a SEC "lock", opted to join the ACC. The SEC still looking for a partner in the east took South Carolina, a program who had struggled since leaving the ACC.
That's all to say this: The one program that seems to be in the wrong place as a result of the last round of realignment is Missouri. The one thing that seems to be keeping 4 x 16 from happening is how to divide the Big 12. Maybe Missouri and Nebraska will have to be reshuffled to get things to come out even.

Missouri landed in exactly the right place... and they won't be placed back in the deck to be shuffled...

(05-26-2014 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC wanted to expand. Top targets were Texas and Florida State, but then things started going wrong.
The Longhorns balked and the SEC vowed to get even by destabilizing the Southwest Conference. They then took Arkansas who at one time in the past had threatened to leave the SWC for the Big 8. The foundation of the SEC which had been rocked with scandal started to crumble.
In the east, Florida State which had long been thought to be a SEC "lock", opted to join the ACC. The SEC still looking for a partner in the east took South Carolina, a program who had struggled since leaving the ACC.
That's all to say this: The one program that seems to be in the wrong place as a result of the last round of realignment is Missouri. The one thing that seems to be keeping 4 x 16 from happening is how to divide the Big 12. Maybe Missouri and Nebraska will have to be reshuffled to get things to come out even.

Your explanation of the 1992 realignment leaves a lot of important details out. But I agree with the net effect that realignment options would have been different today had things gone better in 1992.. Where are you suggesting that Nebraska go? The Big 10 took the one they wanted and sold them to the academics as being AAU when everyone winked because they knew they would no longer be AAU by the time they actually joined.

The SEC had plans to move to 16 in 1992. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M from the West and Florida State and Clemson from the East. Of all of those targets the Oklahoma discussions were more dependent upon Texas and Texas A&M, and Clemson was the one that showed only tepid interest in the overtures. As with many things, Texas had political pressure and changed their minds. Nobody destabilized the SWC as it was already crumbling following the death penalty handed out to S.M.U., so you need to get your story straight on that.

The SEC didn't make a mistake, they only acquired Arkansas. Why? Texas backed out and political and economic pressure was placed upon A&M to become part of the New Big 12. Arkansas got out while they could. That's the end of the story except for these two repercussions: 1. Oklahoma had no interest at all without the two Texas schools and, 2. Bowden was less inclined without Texas and/or Oklahoma and took the easier path of the ACC (you do remember that he and Paterno were in a race to catch the Bear and he said publicly that titles would be easier to win in the ACC). You gotta love that esteem in which Bowden viewed ACC competition.

South Carolina was independent and available and wanted in so we took them.

The goal was to get to twelve schools so we could have two divisions with a playoff. Whether we did that with 12 or 16 was just a measure of how successful the plans would be. They were much less successful than we had hoped, but they still succeeded in delivering the states of Arkansas and South Carolina (two of our 6 targets) keeping our expansion options for the future open to either the West or the East. The conference championship game has been a huge boon to the SEC and was once again a trend setting move by visionary leadership. A&M was just another piece of the vision from 1992. Oklahoma is still an option and Florida State and Clemson would both be much more open to a move today if ESPN wasn't protecting the ACC by refusing to pay for their moves. We don't really need Clemson since South Carolina is beginning to dominate sports in South Carolina, but Clemson is still more of an SEC fit than almost any others we would consider.

If I were you I would be thankful for the SEC's success. It will likely be our popularity that helps bolster your bundled network should you ever get one, which I think you will.

I really don't see how Missouri is a problem. We don't have to have Texas to get to 16, and we only need one Oklahoma school. Missouri is worth more to us than Oklahoma State with the Sooners and either Oklahoma school would do for our realignment needs, it's just that the Sooners do it with more panache. Kansas, because of Missouri, is now an option as well.

I'd say the SEC is in better position moving forward than if we had accomplished our 1992 goals, especially since everyone we considered in 1992 could still be had and the total footprint we have now would be much larger because of the Missouri addition.

You know what they say, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merrier Christmas!" Here we are 22 years later and the SEC is unquestionably superior and more stable to the choice Bobby Bowden made for an burgeoning athletic program's future. The SEC is rock solid and it is the ACC that has suffered defection and a panic leading to the GOR. The SEC still has a concise and solid footprint and the ACC is a long thin line crossing several cultural barriers only now with inland outliers in Notre Dame (which it sold its principles to get) and Louisville (which it sold out its academic standards to acquire).

So I guess you are saying things would work out better if Missouri went to the Big 10 and Nebraska went to the PAC? I assume your argument would be then the SEC could take Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State and be done? Who then does the ACC add? All I see are West Virginia, Connecticut, and Cincinnati. How does that make things any better for the ACC? As for the SEC if we get Oklahoma and Kansas great! If we get a North Carolina and Virginia school even better!

I don't know if the Pac 10 was ever interested, but it should have gone to 16 with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Utah. Of course the Pac 10 would have had to fight off the Big 10 for Nebraska. The Big 10 would have likely gone for either Missouri or Maryland as #12, but it might have been the opportunity for the SEC to extract North Carolina, NC State, Duke, and/or Virginia Tech to join alongside Texas A&M. If the Big 10 goes to 16 you'd imagine Virginia and Rutgers might be in as #14 and #15, and the tug of war over UNC ensues for #16.

I don't know if the SEC would take Oklahoma State or Kansas State in such a scenario to preserve East/West balance when going to 16, but it very well may have been an option.

What's left of the ACC and Big 12 cobble together the last power conference.

SEC
W - A&M, OK St, LSU, Ark
N - KY, VT, TN, Vand
S - Miss, Miss St, Ala, Aub
E - FL, GA, SC, NC St

B1G
A - UVA, UMD, Rut, UNC
W - Iowa, Minn, MO, Wisc
C - IL, NW, Ind, Pur
E - MI, MI St, OH St, PSU

PAC
S - Cal, Stan, UCLA, USC
N - WA, WA St, OR, OR St
M - AZ, AZ St, Utah, Colo
C - TX, OK, KS, Neb

ACC
S - Miami, FL St, GT, Clem
W - KS St, TCU, Bay, TTU
N - Lou, IA St, Pitt, WV
E - Duke, Wake, BC, Syr

(05-26-2014 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC wanted to expand. Top targets were Texas and Florida State, but then things started going wrong.
The Longhorns balked and the SEC vowed to get even by destabilizing the Southwest Conference. They then took Arkansas who at one time in the past had threatened to leave the SWC for the Big 8. The foundation of the SEC which had been rocked with scandal started to crumble.
In the east, Florida State which had long been thought to be a SEC "lock", opted to join the ACC. The SEC still looking for a partner in the east took South Carolina, a program who had struggled since leaving the ACC.
That's all to say this: The one program that seems to be in the wrong place as a result of the last round of realignment is Missouri. The one thing that seems to be keeping 4 x 16 from happening is how to divide the Big 12. Maybe Missouri and Nebraska will have to be reshuffled to get things to come out even.

Your explanation of the 1992 realignment leaves a lot of important details out. But I agree with the net effect that realignment options would have been different today had things gone better in 1992.. Where are you suggesting that Nebraska go? The Big 10 took the one they wanted and sold them to the academics as being AAU when everyone winked because they knew they would no longer be AAU by the time they actually joined.

The SEC had plans to move to 16 in 1992. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M from the West and Florida State and Clemson from the East. Of all of those targets the Oklahoma discussions were more dependent upon Texas and Texas A&M, and Clemson was the one that showed only tepid interest in the overtures. As with many things, Texas had political pressure and changed their minds. Nobody destabilized the SWC as it was already crumbling following the death penalty handed out to S.M.U., so you need to get your story straight on that.

The SEC didn't make a mistake, they only acquired Arkansas. Why? Texas backed out and political and economic pressure was placed upon A&M to become part of the New Big 12. Arkansas got out while they could. That's the end of the story except for these two repercussions: 1. Oklahoma had no interest at all without the two Texas schools and, 2. Bowden was less inclined without Texas and/or Oklahoma and took the easier path of the ACC (you do remember that he and Paterno were in a race to catch the Bear and he said publicly that titles would be easier to win in the ACC). You gotta love that esteem in which Bowden viewed ACC competition.

South Carolina was independent and available and wanted in so we took them.

The goal was to get to twelve schools so we could have two divisions with a playoff. Whether we did that with 12 or 16 was just a measure of how successful the plans would be. They were much less successful than we had hoped, but they still succeeded in delivering the states of Arkansas and South Carolina (two of our 6 targets) keeping our expansion options for the future open to either the West or the East. The conference championship game has been a huge boon to the SEC and was once again a trend setting move by visionary leadership. A&M was just another piece of the vision from 1992. Oklahoma is still an option and Florida State and Clemson would both be much more open to a move today if ESPN wasn't protecting the ACC by refusing to pay for their moves. We don't really need Clemson since South Carolina is beginning to dominate sports in South Carolina, but Clemson is still more of an SEC fit than almost any others we would consider.

If I were you I would be thankful for the SEC's success. It will likely be our popularity that helps bolster your bundled network should you ever get one, which I think you will.

I really don't see how Missouri is a problem. We don't have to have Texas to get to 16, and we only need one Oklahoma school. Missouri is worth more to us than Oklahoma State with the Sooners and either Oklahoma school would do for our realignment needs, it's just that the Sooners do it with more panache. Kansas, because of Missouri, is now an option as well.

I'd say the SEC is in better position moving forward than if we had accomplished our 1992 goals, especially since everyone we considered in 1992 could still be had and the total footprint we have now would be much larger because of the Missouri addition.

You know what they say, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merrier Christmas!" Here we are 22 years later and the SEC is unquestionably superior and more stable to the choice Bobby Bowden made for an burgeoning athletic program's future. The SEC is rock solid and it is the ACC that has suffered defection and a panic leading to the GOR. The SEC still has a concise and solid footprint and the ACC is a long thin line crossing several cultural barriers only now with inland outliers in Notre Dame (which it sold its principles to get) and Louisville (which it sold out its academic standards to acquire).

So I guess you are saying things would work out better if Missouri went to the Big 10 and Nebraska went to the PAC? I assume your argument would be then the SEC could take Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State and be done? Who then does the ACC add? All I see are West Virginia, Connecticut, and Cincinnati. How does that make things any better for the ACC? As for the SEC if we get Oklahoma and Kansas great! If we get a North Carolina and Virginia school even better!

(05-26-2014 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC wanted to expand. Top targets were Texas and Florida State, but then things started going wrong.
The Longhorns balked and the SEC vowed to get even by destabilizing the Southwest Conference. They then took Arkansas who at one time in the past had threatened to leave the SWC for the Big 8. The foundation of the SEC which had been rocked with scandal started to crumble.
In the east, Florida State which had long been thought to be a SEC "lock", opted to join the ACC. The SEC still looking for a partner in the east took South Carolina, a program who had struggled since leaving the ACC.
That's all to say this: The one program that seems to be in the wrong place as a result of the last round of realignment is Missouri. The one thing that seems to be keeping 4 x 16 from happening is how to divide the Big 12. Maybe Missouri and Nebraska will have to be reshuffled to get things to come out even.

How could realignment be 'wrong' when ultimately these moves are really about conference affiliation and long term financial stability. We all talk about the super Metro Conference that never formed, or how the Big East would have stabilized if only Penn St. would have joined. But these are simply myths that distract from the obviousness of the truth; the unspoken power in branding and its market effects. One need look no further than the defections from the B12 and Big East for credible examples.

In fact, who currently in the B12 would turn down an invite from the SEC? What if the offer came from the PAC, B1G or even ACC? Most schools would leave in a heartbeat. There are only two schools left that have brands that exceed that of any conference, ND and Texas. But even from them, that leverage is slowly waning (much to TerryD chagrin). If it wasn't Arkansas or SCAR back in '92, then it would have been A&M and WVU or even VT. Someone was eventually going to say yes.

(05-27-2014 09:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC wanted to expand. Top targets were Texas and Florida State, but then things started going wrong.
The Longhorns balked and the SEC vowed to get even by destabilizing the Southwest Conference. They then took Arkansas who at one time in the past had threatened to leave the SWC for the Big 8. The foundation of the SEC which had been rocked with scandal started to crumble.
In the east, Florida State which had long been thought to be a SEC "lock", opted to join the ACC. The SEC still looking for a partner in the east took South Carolina, a program who had struggled since leaving the ACC.
That's all to say this: The one program that seems to be in the wrong place as a result of the last round of realignment is Missouri. The one thing that seems to be keeping 4 x 16 from happening is how to divide the Big 12. Maybe Missouri and Nebraska will have to be reshuffled to get things to come out even.

Your explanation of the 1992 realignment leaves a lot of important details out. But I agree with the net effect that realignment options would have been different today had things gone better in 1992.. Where are you suggesting that Nebraska go? The Big 10 took the one they wanted and sold them to the academics as being AAU when everyone winked because they knew they would no longer be AAU by the time they actually joined.

The SEC had plans to move to 16 in 1992. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M from the West and Florida State and Clemson from the East. Of all of those targets the Oklahoma discussions were more dependent upon Texas and Texas A&M, and Clemson was the one that showed only tepid interest in the overtures. As with many things, Texas had political pressure and changed their minds. Nobody destabilized the SWC as it was already crumbling following the death penalty handed out to S.M.U., so you need to get your story straight on that.

The SEC didn't make a mistake, they only acquired Arkansas. Why? Texas backed out and political and economic pressure was placed upon A&M to become part of the New Big 12. Arkansas got out while they could. That's the end of the story except for these two repercussions: 1. Oklahoma had no interest at all without the two Texas schools and, 2. Bowden was less inclined without Texas and/or Oklahoma and took the easier path of the ACC (you do remember that he and Paterno were in a race to catch the Bear and he said publicly that titles would be easier to win in the ACC). You gotta love that esteem in which Bowden viewed ACC competition.

South Carolina was independent and available and wanted in so we took them.

The goal was to get to twelve schools so we could have two divisions with a playoff. Whether we did that with 12 or 16 was just a measure of how successful the plans would be. They were much less successful than we had hoped, but they still succeeded in delivering the states of Arkansas and South Carolina (two of our 6 targets) keeping our expansion options for the future open to either the West or the East. The conference championship game has been a huge boon to the SEC and was once again a trend setting move by visionary leadership. A&M was just another piece of the vision from 1992. Oklahoma is still an option and Florida State and Clemson would both be much more open to a move today if ESPN wasn't protecting the ACC by refusing to pay for their moves. We don't really need Clemson since South Carolina is beginning to dominate sports in South Carolina, but Clemson is still more of an SEC fit than almost any others we would consider.

If I were you I would be thankful for the SEC's success. It will likely be our popularity that helps bolster your bundled network should you ever get one, which I think you will.

I really don't see how Missouri is a problem. We don't have to have Texas to get to 16, and we only need one Oklahoma school. Missouri is worth more to us than Oklahoma State with the Sooners and either Oklahoma school would do for our realignment needs, it's just that the Sooners do it with more panache. Kansas, because of Missouri, is now an option as well.

I'd say the SEC is in better position moving forward than if we had accomplished our 1992 goals, especially since everyone we considered in 1992 could still be had and the total footprint we have now would be much larger because of the Missouri addition.

You know what they say, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merrier Christmas!" Here we are 22 years later and the SEC is unquestionably superior and more stable to the choice Bobby Bowden made for an burgeoning athletic program's future. The SEC is rock solid and it is the ACC that has suffered defection and a panic leading to the GOR. The SEC still has a concise and solid footprint and the ACC is a long thin line crossing several cultural barriers only now with inland outliers in Notre Dame (which it sold its principles to get) and Louisville (which it sold out its academic standards to acquire).

So I guess you are saying things would work out better if Missouri went to the Big 10 and Nebraska went to the PAC? I assume your argument would be then the SEC could take Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State and be done? Who then does the ACC add? All I see are West Virginia, Connecticut, and Cincinnati. How does that make things any better for the ACC? As for the SEC if we get Oklahoma and Kansas great! If we get a North Carolina and Virginia school even better!

My history book must not have been the "SEC Edition"

(05-27-2014 11:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC wanted to expand. Top targets were Texas and Florida State, but then things started going wrong.
The Longhorns balked and the SEC vowed to get even by destabilizing the Southwest Conference. They then took Arkansas who at one time in the past had threatened to leave the SWC for the Big 8. The foundation of the SEC which had been rocked with scandal started to crumble.
In the east, Florida State which had long been thought to be a SEC "lock", opted to join the ACC. The SEC still looking for a partner in the east took South Carolina, a program who had struggled since leaving the ACC.
That's all to say this: The one program that seems to be in the wrong place as a result of the last round of realignment is Missouri. The one thing that seems to be keeping 4 x 16 from happening is how to divide the Big 12. Maybe Missouri and Nebraska will have to be reshuffled to get things to come out even.

Your explanation of the 1992 realignment leaves a lot of important details out. But I agree with the net effect that realignment options would have been different today had things gone better in 1992.. Where are you suggesting that Nebraska go? The Big 10 took the one they wanted and sold them to the academics as being AAU when everyone winked because they knew they would no longer be AAU by the time they actually joined.

The SEC had plans to move to 16 in 1992. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M from the West and Florida State and Clemson from the East. Of all of those targets the Oklahoma discussions were more dependent upon Texas and Texas A&M, and Clemson was the one that showed only tepid interest in the overtures. As with many things, Texas had political pressure and changed their minds. Nobody destabilized the SWC as it was already crumbling following the death penalty handed out to S.M.U., so you need to get your story straight on that.

The SEC didn't make a mistake, they only acquired Arkansas. Why? Texas backed out and political and economic pressure was placed upon A&M to become part of the New Big 12. Arkansas got out while they could. That's the end of the story except for these two repercussions: 1. Oklahoma had no interest at all without the two Texas schools and, 2. Bowden was less inclined without Texas and/or Oklahoma and took the easier path of the ACC (you do remember that he and Paterno were in a race to catch the Bear and he said publicly that titles would be easier to win in the ACC). You gotta love that esteem in which Bowden viewed ACC competition.

South Carolina was independent and available and wanted in so we took them.

The goal was to get to twelve schools so we could have two divisions with a playoff. Whether we did that with 12 or 16 was just a measure of how successful the plans would be. They were much less successful than we had hoped, but they still succeeded in delivering the states of Arkansas and South Carolina (two of our 6 targets) keeping our expansion options for the future open to either the West or the East. The conference championship game has been a huge boon to the SEC and was once again a trend setting move by visionary leadership. A&M was just another piece of the vision from 1992. Oklahoma is still an option and Florida State and Clemson would both be much more open to a move today if ESPN wasn't protecting the ACC by refusing to pay for their moves. We don't really need Clemson since South Carolina is beginning to dominate sports in South Carolina, but Clemson is still more of an SEC fit than almost any others we would consider.

If I were you I would be thankful for the SEC's success. It will likely be our popularity that helps bolster your bundled network should you ever get one, which I think you will.

I really don't see how Missouri is a problem. We don't have to have Texas to get to 16, and we only need one Oklahoma school. Missouri is worth more to us than Oklahoma State with the Sooners and either Oklahoma school would do for our realignment needs, it's just that the Sooners do it with more panache. Kansas, because of Missouri, is now an option as well.

I'd say the SEC is in better position moving forward than if we had accomplished our 1992 goals, especially since everyone we considered in 1992 could still be had and the total footprint we have now would be much larger because of the Missouri addition.

You know what they say, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merrier Christmas!" Here we are 22 years later and the SEC is unquestionably superior and more stable to the choice Bobby Bowden made for an burgeoning athletic program's future. The SEC is rock solid and it is the ACC that has suffered defection and a panic leading to the GOR. The SEC still has a concise and solid footprint and the ACC is a long thin line crossing several cultural barriers only now with inland outliers in Notre Dame (which it sold its principles to get) and Louisville (which it sold out its academic standards to acquire).

So I guess you are saying things would work out better if Missouri went to the Big 10 and Nebraska went to the PAC? I assume your argument would be then the SEC could take Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State and be done? Who then does the ACC add? All I see are West Virginia, Connecticut, and Cincinnati. How does that make things any better for the ACC? As for the SEC if we get Oklahoma and Kansas great! If we get a North Carolina and Virginia school even better!

My history book must not have been the "SEC Edition"

No it wasn't. It was ACC revisionism.