(10-21-2015 02:15 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Blogger talks about things that he considers misconceptions that are often pushed forward in realignment talk as viable and even likely possibilities to trigger conference movement. Has interesting take on things IMHO


LINK

Pretty nice read... Thanks for sharing, BigCotonProul

(10-21-2015 10:02 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 04:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 04:12 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Brett McMurphy reiterated just recently that the B12 will not go West, and he's been saying it since day one.

Where did he do it?

http://www.espn929.com/pages/21786932.ph...d=17618265

“The only thing I know for certain is that the Big 12 does not want to expand west. I’ve said that 100 times and I’ll say it 100 more. I know everybody talks about BYU, but everyone I talk to, all my sources, they tell me BYU is not an option. So then the question is, if the Big 12 does expand, who are the two teams they go toward?”

Was this last week? I couldn't find any date on which "Friday" it was.

(10-21-2015 04:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 04:12 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Brett McMurphy reiterated just recently that the B12 will not go West, and he's been saying it since day one.

Where did he do it?

Twitter from what I saw.

(10-21-2015 06:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  "The Gentlemen's Agreement" that is so oft mis-cited that it has become an internet myth, was for the SEC schools with in state rivals not to nominate their in state rival for membership until two new states had been added to the footprint (positions 13 & 14) because those were needed to open the existing contract for renegotiation. The reason Mike Slive asked for such was because both Florida and South Carolina were concerned that if their in state rivals were not part of the SEC that growing conferences might make it even harder to keep their in state rivals scheduled and both schools rely on the ticket priority for those games to generate substantial donations to their schools.

ESPN simply refused to pay for F.S.U. & Clemson's inclusion in the SEC. There was no agreement to exclude them at all, only the promise of no additional money from ESPN if we tried to add them. The net result is that the SEC won't make those additions, but certainly not for the oft quoted internet myth as to the tri state agreement to block.

Stop and think about that. How many governors and state legislators would look favorably upon one of their state schools preventing another from maximizing revenue? The answer is none. The black ball crap is just fan boy internet taunts.

The simple truth is that ESPN wants to park new acquisitions in the SEC and ACC and that is the beginning and end of the story.

Yeah, the oh so mighty powerful expanded with a university that has never won a national championship in football and threw them into the East when they are the most western school in the conference so they didn't have to put any thought or energy in having to deal with the cast away member to go with A&M which ran from Texas with their tail between their legs.

Other conferences have expanded with additional grab of millions of populated land and national power programs in the biggest sport in college.

Considering you kept posting a certain date on a certain website all summer long you were simply living in dream land about a certain school wanting to expand into your certain conference - you know, the only thing that should exist in your world.

(10-21-2015 07:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 06:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 04:12 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Brett McMurphy reiterated just recently that the B12 will not go West, and he's been saying it since day one.

Brett McMurphy knows as much about Big 12 alignment as Greg Flagaur. He knows less than the Dude.

He may be one of the first to report an actual expansion when it happens, but McMurphy is the kind of media personality the Big 12 insiders love to give feeler information - to help get the media's and public's reaction to certain ideas, concepts, and potential moves.

No, he knows more than about anybody. You just don't like what he said. And he is 100% right that the Big 12 does not intend to go west. There are lots of direct quotes that confirm that.

Personally, I think they will change their mind when they consider the alternatives. But they really want to go only east.

Exactly. He isn't a very big fan of UC and constantly rips on the AAC, but he is usually correct when it comes to conference realignment.

BYU might need the big 12 to add houston for it to get a spot, than each side only has 1 outlier.

Big 12

W: OU, Ok State, KU, Kstate, Io State, BYU

E: Texas, Tex Tech, TCU, Baylor, houston, WVU

(10-22-2015 09:47 AM)bluesox Wrote:  BYU might need the big 12 to add houston for it to get a spot, than each side only has 1 outlier....

Well that's a dumb reason.

BYU is a dead issue. They will NEVER end up in the Big XII. Bet on that.

"Stop and think about that. How many governors and state legislators would look favorably upon one of their state schools preventing another from maximizing revenue? The answer is none. The black ball crap is just fan boy internet taunts.

Ohio did when they looked the other way as the B1g, Gee & Co at to$u and even PSU blackballed any other B1g/P5 school in their state, primarily Cincinnati in Ohio or Pitt in PA, from ever happening. This despite there being Michigan/MSU, Purdue/IU, Illinois/Northwestern. It happens. After all, if the gov and state legislators et al weren't in the bag for t0$u they wouldn't get the preferential treatment, now would they?

(10-21-2015 06:14 PM)YNot Wrote:  Brett McMurphy knows as much about Big 12 alignment as Greg Flagaur. He knows less than the Dude.

He may be one of the first to report an actual expansion when it happens, but McMurphy is the kind of media personality the Big 12 insiders love to give feeler information - to help get the media's and public's reaction to certain ideas, concepts, and potential moves.

1st paragraph isn't fair. When McMurphy floats a rumor, you know there's at least some substance behind it. Not hard to believe there is aversion to BYU in the B12.

I do have a theory that the B12 was burned by McMurphy in the last round of realignment. He was quite vocal about the B12's interest in Louisville. That may have played into the ACC's decision to preemptively snatch the Cardinals off the table. So it wouldn't shock me if McMurphy's sources are now stonewalling him. Just a theory.

(10-21-2015 10:02 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  http://www.espn929.com/pages/21786932.ph...d=17618265

“The only thing I know for certain is that the Big 12 does not want to expand west. I’ve said that 100 times and I’ll say it 100 more. I know everybody talks about BYU, but everyone I talk to, all my sources, they tell me BYU is not an option. So then the question is, if the Big 12 does expand, who are the two teams they go toward?”

I remember this interview from back in the summer. IIRC, McMurphy was also pretty confident that the B12 would wait about 5 years before expanding.

(10-22-2015 07:38 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 06:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  "The Gentlemen's Agreement" that is so oft mis-cited that it has become an internet myth, was for the SEC schools with in state rivals not to nominate their in state rival for membership until two new states had been added to the footprint (positions 13 & 14) because those were needed to open the existing contract for renegotiation. The reason Mike Slive asked for such was because both Florida and South Carolina were concerned that if their in state rivals were not part of the SEC that growing conferences might make it even harder to keep their in state rivals scheduled and both schools rely on the ticket priority for those games to generate substantial donations to their schools.

ESPN simply refused to pay for F.S.U. & Clemson's inclusion in the SEC. There was no agreement to exclude them at all, only the promise of no additional money from ESPN if we tried to add them. The net result is that the SEC won't make those additions, but certainly not for the oft quoted internet myth as to the tri state agreement to block.

Stop and think about that. How many governors and state legislators would look favorably upon one of their state schools preventing another from maximizing revenue? The answer is none. The black ball crap is just fan boy internet taunts.

The simple truth is that ESPN wants to park new acquisitions in the SEC and ACC and that is the beginning and end of the story.

Yeah, the oh so mighty powerful expanded with a university that has never won a national championship in football and threw them into the East when they are the most western school in the conference so they didn't have to put any thought or energy in having to deal with the cast away member to go with A&M which ran from Texas with their tail between their legs.

Other conferences have expanded with additional grab of millions of populated land and national power programs in the biggest sport in college.

Considering you kept posting a certain date on a certain website all summer long you were simply living in dream land about a certain school wanting to expand into your certain conference - you know, the only thing that should exist in your world.

I don't believe for a moment that you are a graduate of a Big 10 school or your reading comprehension would be a lot better. All I ever posted on this site or any other was that there was a specified window due to conference notification in which something could happen without accruing further penalties for withdrawal without notification. Missouri added the only school in a state of 8 million with several top 50 markets. I bet they still are a better addition athletically than Rutgers or Maryland. Do you want to argue that point as well? With Texas A&M the SEC added 34 million viewers with those two additions. Not bad considering our demographic. It was a helluva lot better than the digital manipulators of the cob that the B1G got! What is it now? .....4 losses and counting. What a legacy! My how the mighty have fallen! BTW when in the collective memory of the living have Rutgers and Maryland won a natty in football?

Probably went to Nebraska-Omaha.

Makes me wonder why FSU and Oklahoma don't start talking more about starting a completely new conference....FSU could most likely bring Clemson, Miami, and Louisville with them....Oklahoma might bring Okie State with them.

You'd have 6 schools with ideas of maximizing a TV deal:
FSU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Miami
Clemson
Louisville

The next 2 candidates would probably be Houston + someone...

That would be the start of the anti-SEC/anti-B1G/anti-Texas Longhorns Conference...