(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.

I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.

I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.

The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.

I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.

There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.

Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

I see a pretty large delta between keeping PSU happy and them leaving if the B1G doesn't expand East.

(12-04-2016 05:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.

I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.

I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.

The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.

I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.

There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.

Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

I see a pretty large delta between keeping PSU happy and them leaving if the B1G doesn't expand East.

Seriously? Did you even read the link? Here's an actual quote from the article:

"Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board.

Given Barry, Jim, and frankly the MKE Sentinel all have a strong vested interest in making the B1G look strong, the odds of that quote, where they explicitly say that RU and UMD were to keep PSU in the B1G, being understated are EXTREMELY high.

(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 04:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.

Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.

Even we had to rebuild after a bad decade. Beginning with the Mike DuBose hire in 1997, we took a nosedive and didn't regain our cache until Nick Saban showed up in 2007.

We don't like to talk about the dark days, but they happened.

But yeah, Mizzou isn't a true outlier. It's not really a Southern school by the traditional definition, but I don't think the culture of the school is all that different and geographically it fits. One bad season doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. We all have bad seasons from time to time. That and the conference makeup is stronger because of Mizzou whether they have a crappy football season every now and then or not.

(12-04-2016 04:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 04:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.

Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.

Even we had to rebuild after a bad decade. Beginning with the Mike DuBose hire in 1997, we took a nosedive and didn't regain our cache until Nick Saban showed up in 2007.

We don't like to talk about the dark days, but they happened.

But yeah, Mizzou isn't a true outlier. It's not really a Southern school by the traditional definition, but I don't think the culture of the school is all that different and geographically it fits. One bad season doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. We all have bad seasons from time to time. That and the conference makeup is stronger because of Mizzou whether they have a crappy football season every now and then or not.

I wouldn't worry about it. Missouri has a historical association with the South whether it was a majority decision or not it was truly a border state. But to bring things into the present, you fit the SEC as well as you could have fit the Big 10. We got you. It's done and you are in the family whether our distant cousins in the ACC like it or not. The only way you can leave is by your own choice. That's called security. There was no buy in. That's called equality. There was full rights from day 1. That's called the best deal anyone will ever get!

IMO, the only thing that is keeping Missouri from feeling totally included is two to four more members from the Big 12. When they are in a division where most of their competition is no more than two states away they will feel at home in the SEC, and when joined with more Westerly additions the SEC will feel like they are at home tucked safely in the midst of a new division.

Missouri doesn't fit per se with Georgia or Florida, or with L.S.U.or Auburn. But, Missouri does fit quite wonderfully with Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas A&M or others from that region. When the rest of the SEC sees you in that kind of a Western Division they will accept the whole division as being a natural fit on our left flank.

But if the SEC never makes but 1 more addition, so long as that addition is to the West it will still feel right:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

That would feel right, look right, and would seem like home to those who were a part of it.

(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 04:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.

Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.

I meant in general. MIZZOU is a train wreck right now. The sports teams being down is only part of it.

(12-04-2016 11:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.

There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.

Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

I see a pretty large delta between keeping PSU happy and them leaving if the B1G doesn't expand East.

Seriously? Did you even read the link? Here's an actual quote from the article:

"Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board.

Given Barry, Jim, and frankly the MKE Sentinel all have a strong vested interest in making the B1G look strong, the odds of that quote, where they explicitly say that RU and UMD were to keep PSU in the B1G, being understated are EXTREMELY high.

I read the link. I can also get you links about UGA and UF floating the idea about joining the ACC. This isn't me stating that the words weren't sincere, I simply have a difficult time thinking the PSU President would weigh the athletics issues more than the academic affiliation with regards to the B1G.

(12-04-2016 01:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.

There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.

Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

Nope. It wasn't the Big 12 they were talking to. But things got real cozy for two weeks before ESPN stopped it.

I assumed that XL was referencing The Dude and his followers.

You do know what happens when you assume, right?

(12-04-2016 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 04:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.

Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.

Even we had to rebuild after a bad decade. Beginning with the Mike DuBose hire in 1997, we took a nosedive and didn't regain our cache until Nick Saban showed up in 2007.

We don't like to talk about the dark days, but they happened.

But yeah, Mizzou isn't a true outlier. It's not really a Southern school by the traditional definition, but I don't think the culture of the school is all that different and geographically it fits. One bad season doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. We all have bad seasons from time to time. That and the conference makeup is stronger because of Mizzou whether they have a crappy football season every now and then or not.

I wouldn't worry about it. Missouri has a historical association with the South whether it was a majority decision or not it was truly a border state. But to bring things into the present, you fit the SEC as well as you could have fit the Big 10. We got you. It's done and you are in the family whether our distant cousins in the ACC like it or not. The only way you can leave is by your own choice. That's called security. There was no buy in. That's called equality. There was full rights from day 1. That's called the best deal anyone will ever get!

IMO, the only thing that is keeping Missouri from feeling totally included is two to four more members from the Big 12. When they are in a division where most of their competition is no more than two states away they will feel at home in the SEC, and when joined with more Westerly additions the SEC will feel like they are at home tucked safely in the midst of a new division.

Missouri doesn't fit per se with Georgia or Florida, or with L.S.U.or Auburn. But, Missouri does fit quite wonderfully with Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas A&M or others from that region. When the rest of the SEC sees you in that kind of a Western Division they will accept the whole division as being a natural fit on our left flank.

But if the SEC never makes but 1 more addition, so long as that addition is to the West it will still feel right:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

That would feel right, look right, and would seem like home to those who were a part of it.

Missouri is in an interesting situation, in that they could fit with ease in more than one conference. I like the division of Arkansas, LSU, Mizzou A&M and Oklahoma, but I think I like the division of LSU, A&M Arkansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State better. Or could you consider a division of Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Minn.? Missouri could fit in either situation.

(12-04-2016 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.

Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

I see a pretty large delta between keeping PSU happy and them leaving if the B1G doesn't expand East.

Seriously? Did you even read the link? Here's an actual quote from the article:

"Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board.

Given Barry, Jim, and frankly the MKE Sentinel all have a strong vested interest in making the B1G look strong, the odds of that quote, where they explicitly say that RU and UMD were to keep PSU in the B1G, being understated are EXTREMELY high.

I read the link. I can also get you links about UGA and UF floating the idea about joining the ACC. This isn't me stating that the words weren't sincere, I simply have a difficult time thinking the PSU President would weigh the athletics issues more than the academic affiliation with regards to the B1G.

I'll call your bluff. Find an article about UF and UGA making overtures to the ACC in the last 5 years. And if you really want to go apples for apples, make sure that article explicitly mentions the SEC commish being concerned about it.

As for academics, you do realize that the ACC was a stronger academic conference at the time, right? It's only due to the UL for UMD trade that the conference's have arguably switched.

...and PSU's president just came from an ACC school (I think that the article was post-Spanier)

Believe what you want, but the guys involved explicitly said that they added RU and UMD to keep PSU in the conference. And the B1G turned around and added two schools* that just so happen to be located where PSU recruits and where PSU's big donors live.

*One of which has a close to worthless AD

(12-04-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 01:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.

Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

Nope. It wasn't the Big 12 they were talking to. But things got real cozy for two weeks before ESPN stopped it.

I assumed that XL was referencing The Dude and his followers.

You do know what happens when you assume, right?

Yeah, generally things get done.

(12-04-2016 11:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

I see a pretty large delta between keeping PSU happy and them leaving if the B1G doesn't expand East.

Seriously? Did you even read the link? Here's an actual quote from the article:

"Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board.

Given Barry, Jim, and frankly the MKE Sentinel all have a strong vested interest in making the B1G look strong, the odds of that quote, where they explicitly say that RU and UMD were to keep PSU in the B1G, being understated are EXTREMELY high.

I read the link. I can also get you links about UGA and UF floating the idea about joining the ACC. This isn't me stating that the words weren't sincere, I simply have a difficult time thinking the PSU President would weigh the athletics issues more than the academic affiliation with regards to the B1G.

I'll call your bluff. Find an article about UF and UGA making overtures to the ACC in the last 5 years. And if you really want to go apples for apples, make sure that article explicitly mentions the SEC commish being concerned about it.

As for academics, you do realize that the ACC was a stronger academic conference at the time, right? It's only due to the UL for UMD trade that the conference's have arguably switched.

...and PSU's president just came from an ACC school (I think that the article was post-Spanier)

Believe what you want, but the guys involved explicitly said that they added RU and UMD to keep PSU in the conference. And the B1G turned around and added two schools* that just so happen to be located where PSU recruits and where PSU's big donors live.

*One of which has a close to worthless AD

The Georgia/Florida to the ACC scenario is real but pretty old.

(12-05-2016 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I see a pretty large delta between keeping PSU happy and them leaving if the B1G doesn't expand East.

Seriously? Did you even read the link? Here's an actual quote from the article:

"Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board.

Given Barry, Jim, and frankly the MKE Sentinel all have a strong vested interest in making the B1G look strong, the odds of that quote, where they explicitly say that RU and UMD were to keep PSU in the B1G, being understated are EXTREMELY high.

I read the link. I can also get you links about UGA and UF floating the idea about joining the ACC. This isn't me stating that the words weren't sincere, I simply have a difficult time thinking the PSU President would weigh the athletics issues more than the academic affiliation with regards to the B1G.

I'll call your bluff. Find an article about UF and UGA making overtures to the ACC in the last 5 years. And if you really want to go apples for apples, make sure that article explicitly mentions the SEC commish being concerned about it.

As for academics, you do realize that the ACC was a stronger academic conference at the time, right? It's only due to the UL for UMD trade that the conference's have arguably switched.

...and PSU's president just came from an ACC school (I think that the article was post-Spanier)

Believe what you want, but the guys involved explicitly said that they added RU and UMD to keep PSU in the conference. And the B1G turned around and added two schools* that just so happen to be located where PSU recruits and where PSU's big donors live.

*One of which has a close to worthless AD

The Georgia/Florida to the ACC scenario is real but pretty old.

Yep, around 40 years old now and even then only Florida was halfway serious.

(12-05-2016 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Seriously? Did you even read the link? Here's an actual quote from the article:

"Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board.

Given Barry, Jim, and frankly the MKE Sentinel all have a strong vested interest in making the B1G look strong, the odds of that quote, where they explicitly say that RU and UMD were to keep PSU in the B1G, being understated are EXTREMELY high.

I read the link. I can also get you links about UGA and UF floating the idea about joining the ACC. This isn't me stating that the words weren't sincere, I simply have a difficult time thinking the PSU President would weigh the athletics issues more than the academic affiliation with regards to the B1G.

I'll call your bluff. Find an article about UF and UGA making overtures to the ACC in the last 5 years. And if you really want to go apples for apples, make sure that article explicitly mentions the SEC commish being concerned about it.

As for academics, you do realize that the ACC was a stronger academic conference at the time, right? It's only due to the UL for UMD trade that the conference's have arguably switched.

...and PSU's president just came from an ACC school (I think that the article was post-Spanier)

Believe what you want, but the guys involved explicitly said that they added RU and UMD to keep PSU in the conference. And the B1G turned around and added two schools* that just so happen to be located where PSU recruits and where PSU's big donors live.

*One of which has a close to worthless AD

The Georgia/Florida to the ACC scenario is real but pretty old.

Yep, around 40 years old now and even then only Florida was halfway serious.

I seem to remember a little differently JR. I thought that it was Georgia that was unsure, and Florida had their bags packed.

(12-05-2016 12:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I read the link. I can also get you links about UGA and UF floating the idea about joining the ACC. This isn't me stating that the words weren't sincere, I simply have a difficult time thinking the PSU President would weigh the athletics issues more than the academic affiliation with regards to the B1G.

I'll call your bluff. Find an article about UF and UGA making overtures to the ACC in the last 5 years. And if you really want to go apples for apples, make sure that article explicitly mentions the SEC commish being concerned about it.

As for academics, you do realize that the ACC was a stronger academic conference at the time, right? It's only due to the UL for UMD trade that the conference's have arguably switched.

...and PSU's president just came from an ACC school (I think that the article was post-Spanier)

Believe what you want, but the guys involved explicitly said that they added RU and UMD to keep PSU in the conference. And the B1G turned around and added two schools* that just so happen to be located where PSU recruits and where PSU's big donors live.

*One of which has a close to worthless AD

The Georgia/Florida to the ACC scenario is real but pretty old.

Yep, around 40 years old now and even then only Florida was halfway serious.

I seem to remember a little differently JR. I thought that it was Georgia that was unsure, and Florida had their bags packed.

No. We are on the same page X, just with a varying degree of nuance. Georgia was vaguely interested and Florida was a bit more serious. It was very similar to Clemson and Florida State for the SEC in '91-'92. Clemson was vaguely interested and Florida State was in play for a little while. I think my favorite word to describe Clemson's interest in '91-'92 was tepid.

(12-04-2016 01:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 01:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.

Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

Nope. It wasn't the Big 12 they were talking to. But things got real cozy for two weeks before ESPN stopped it.

I assumed that XL was referencing The Dude and his followers.

The Dude and his followers were always predicting the ACC's demise. What happened that stood as a legitimate threat took place in a small window of time that preceded Maryland's announcement by a just a little bit. The Dude had been predicting the ACC's demise going back way before any of this.

The dude has personal distain for the ACC since Duke and UNC supposedly greatly disrespected the state and university of West Virginia when WVU applied for membership about five years ago. To be honest, the SEC gave them a list of things to work on, such as airports baseball stadium and other infrastructure needs. None of that had anything to do with fan/student behavior like rampant underage drinking, couch burning in the streets restricting emergency services access, fans beating up pregnant visiting fans. Many former Big East members now in the ACC had the same issues

(12-04-2016 09:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 04:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.

Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.

Even we had to rebuild after a bad decade. Beginning with the Mike DuBose hire in 1997, we took a nosedive and didn't regain our cache until Nick Saban showed up in 2007.

We don't like to talk about the dark days, but they happened.

But yeah, Mizzou isn't a true outlier. It's not really a Southern school by the traditional definition, but I don't think the culture of the school is all that different and geographically it fits. One bad season doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. We all have bad seasons from time to time. That and the conference makeup is stronger because of Mizzou whether they have a crappy football season every now and then or not.

I wouldn't worry about it. Missouri has a historical association with the South whether it was a majority decision or not it was truly a border state. But to bring things into the present, you fit the SEC as well as you could have fit the Big 10. We got you. It's done and you are in the family whether our distant cousins in the ACC like it or not. The only way you can leave is by your own choice. That's called security. There was no buy in. That's called equality. There was full rights from day 1. That's called the best deal anyone will ever get!

IMO, the only thing that is keeping Missouri from feeling totally included is two to four more members from the Big 12. When they are in a division where most of their competition is no more than two states away they will feel at home in the SEC, and when joined with more Westerly additions the SEC will feel like they are at home tucked safely in the midst of a new division.

Missouri doesn't fit per se with Georgia or Florida, or with L.S.U.or Auburn. But, Missouri does fit quite wonderfully with Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas A&M or others from that region. When the rest of the SEC sees you in that kind of a Western Division they will accept the whole division as being a natural fit on our left flank.

But if the SEC never makes but 1 more addition, so long as that addition is to the West it will still feel right:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

That would feel right, look right, and would seem like home to those who were a part of it.

Missouri is in an interesting situation, in that they could fit with ease in more than one conference. I like the division of Arkansas, LSU, Mizzou A&M and Oklahoma, but I think I like the division of LSU, A&M Arkansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State better. Or could you consider a division of Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Minn.? Missouri could fit in either situation.

But X... so could North Carolina... either the ACC or SEC.

(12-05-2016 02:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 09:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.

Even we had to rebuild after a bad decade. Beginning with the Mike DuBose hire in 1997, we took a nosedive and didn't regain our cache until Nick Saban showed up in 2007.

We don't like to talk about the dark days, but they happened.

But yeah, Mizzou isn't a true outlier. It's not really a Southern school by the traditional definition, but I don't think the culture of the school is all that different and geographically it fits. One bad season doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. We all have bad seasons from time to time. That and the conference makeup is stronger because of Mizzou whether they have a crappy football season every now and then or not.

I wouldn't worry about it. Missouri has a historical association with the South whether it was a majority decision or not it was truly a border state. But to bring things into the present, you fit the SEC as well as you could have fit the Big 10. We got you. It's done and you are in the family whether our distant cousins in the ACC like it or not. The only way you can leave is by your own choice. That's called security. There was no buy in. That's called equality. There was full rights from day 1. That's called the best deal anyone will ever get!

IMO, the only thing that is keeping Missouri from feeling totally included is two to four more members from the Big 12. When they are in a division where most of their competition is no more than two states away they will feel at home in the SEC, and when joined with more Westerly additions the SEC will feel like they are at home tucked safely in the midst of a new division.

Missouri doesn't fit per se with Georgia or Florida, or with L.S.U.or Auburn. But, Missouri does fit quite wonderfully with Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas A&M or others from that region. When the rest of the SEC sees you in that kind of a Western Division they will accept the whole division as being a natural fit on our left flank.

But if the SEC never makes but 1 more addition, so long as that addition is to the West it will still feel right:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

That would feel right, look right, and would seem like home to those who were a part of it.

Missouri is in an interesting situation, in that they could fit with ease in more than one conference. I like the division of Arkansas, LSU, Mizzou A&M and Oklahoma, but I think I like the division of LSU, A&M Arkansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State better. Or could you consider a division of Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Minn.? Missouri could fit in either situation.

But X... so could North Carolina... either the ACC or SEC.

or the B1G.

(12-05-2016 01:16 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 01:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 01:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions

Nope. It wasn't the Big 12 they were talking to. But things got real cozy for two weeks before ESPN stopped it.

I assumed that XL was referencing The Dude and his followers.

The Dude and his followers were always predicting the ACC's demise. What happened that stood as a legitimate threat took place in a small window of time that preceded Maryland's announcement by a just a little bit. The Dude had been predicting the ACC's demise going back way before any of this.

The dude has personal distain for the ACC since Duke and UNC supposedly greatly disrespected the state and university of West Virginia when WVU applied for membership about five years ago. To be honest, the SEC gave them a list of things to work on, such as airports baseball stadium and other infrastructure needs. None of that had anything to do with fan/student behavior like rampant underage drinking, couch burning in the streets restricting emergency services access, fans beating up pregnant visiting fans. Many former Big East members now in the ACC had the same issues

Well... I guess that proves the old adage doesn't it. You can't make a silk purse out of a soused 'Eer!

(12-05-2016 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I see a pretty large delta between keeping PSU happy and them leaving if the B1G doesn't expand East.

Seriously? Did you even read the link? Here's an actual quote from the article:

"Jim felt that someday, if we didn't have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn't make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league," Alvarez told the board.

Given Barry, Jim, and frankly the MKE Sentinel all have a strong vested interest in making the B1G look strong, the odds of that quote, where they explicitly say that RU and UMD were to keep PSU in the B1G, being understated are EXTREMELY high.

I read the link. I can also get you links about UGA and UF floating the idea about joining the ACC. This isn't me stating that the words weren't sincere, I simply have a difficult time thinking the PSU President would weigh the athletics issues more than the academic affiliation with regards to the B1G.

I'll call your bluff. Find an article about UF and UGA making overtures to the ACC in the last 5 years. And if you really want to go apples for apples, make sure that article explicitly mentions the SEC commish being concerned about it.

As for academics, you do realize that the ACC was a stronger academic conference at the time, right? It's only due to the UL for UMD trade that the conference's have arguably switched.

...and PSU's president just came from an ACC school (I think that the article was post-Spanier)

Believe what you want, but the guys involved explicitly said that they added RU and UMD to keep PSU in the conference. And the B1G turned around and added two schools* that just so happen to be located where PSU recruits and where PSU's big donors live.

*One of which has a close to worthless AD

The Georgia/Florida to the ACC scenario is real but pretty old.

That's my point that last time there was smoke around UF, it was real. It obviously didn't happen, but it was far from inconceivable (vs UF leaving now, which would be a pipe dream)

The same was (and maybe is) true w/PSU.

(12-05-2016 02:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 09:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.

Even we had to rebuild after a bad decade. Beginning with the Mike DuBose hire in 1997, we took a nosedive and didn't regain our cache until Nick Saban showed up in 2007.

We don't like to talk about the dark days, but they happened.

But yeah, Mizzou isn't a true outlier. It's not really a Southern school by the traditional definition, but I don't think the culture of the school is all that different and geographically it fits. One bad season doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. We all have bad seasons from time to time. That and the conference makeup is stronger because of Mizzou whether they have a crappy football season every now and then or not.

I wouldn't worry about it. Missouri has a historical association with the South whether it was a majority decision or not it was truly a border state. But to bring things into the present, you fit the SEC as well as you could have fit the Big 10. We got you. It's done and you are in the family whether our distant cousins in the ACC like it or not. The only way you can leave is by your own choice. That's called security. There was no buy in. That's called equality. There was full rights from day 1. That's called the best deal anyone will ever get!

IMO, the only thing that is keeping Missouri from feeling totally included is two to four more members from the Big 12. When they are in a division where most of their competition is no more than two states away they will feel at home in the SEC, and when joined with more Westerly additions the SEC will feel like they are at home tucked safely in the midst of a new division.

Missouri doesn't fit per se with Georgia or Florida, or with L.S.U.or Auburn. But, Missouri does fit quite wonderfully with Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas A&M or others from that region. When the rest of the SEC sees you in that kind of a Western Division they will accept the whole division as being a natural fit on our left flank.

But if the SEC never makes but 1 more addition, so long as that addition is to the West it will still feel right:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

That would feel right, look right, and would seem like home to those who were a part of it.

Missouri is in an interesting situation, in that they could fit with ease in more than one conference. I like the division of Arkansas, LSU, Mizzou A&M and Oklahoma, but I think I like the division of LSU, A&M Arkansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State better. Or could you consider a division of Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Minn.? Missouri could fit in either situation.

But X... so could North Carolina... either the ACC or SEC.

Missouri is somewhat unique in that it would be a good fit for at least 3 conferences - the SEC, the B1G, and the Big 12. Would their entire fanbase be a perfect match for all 3? Perhaps not - but they could still be more at home in all 3 places than many schools would be. I still think that the A&M add was the true key for the SEC at 13, but Missouri was a very, very good partner at #14 to go with them.