Nebraska: Big 12 to the Big 10 in 2011.
Positives: More $.
Negatives: Less wins. Less rivalry games. Will never fit in the Big 10. Nebraska is nothing like Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and even Iowa. They lost key Big 8/12 rivalry games and lost their recruiting connection to Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado.

Missouri: Big 12 to the SEC in 2012.
Positives: More $.
Negatives: Missouri is not a Southern state. I repeat, not Southern at all. Being conference mates with Florida and Georgia is ridiculous. There's that. Lost Kansas rivalry. Lost old Big 8 rivalries that go back to the first men. Do Mizzou games ever get put on tv anymore? I don't count a regional Southern conference network I've never watched before if that's who shows their games.

This sounds crazy to most, but I think they'd both be better off going back to the Big 12 with the rest of their historical rivals where they belong. If not? Eventually they'll make less money as losing and playing manufactured rivalry games means less butts in the seats. I said it right here first.

Mizzou has won the SEC East twice. Yes, they lost KU but gained Arky and kept A&M. If they moved to the SEC West they would fit better, but that is a move that will be resolved with the next round of realignment.

More than just money, but of these moves provided the schools with something even more valuable; stability.

I agree. Sometimes the grass is not greener.

Nebraska is better off in the B1G. Their decline started two deceased ago when they joined the B12, which voted 11-1 (NU the lone dissenter) to not allow partial qualifiers. NU had stocked its teams heavily with these academic borderlines. Without them they were a state with the population of Idaho trading on name only. Recruiting challenges have become even harder now that their glory days were a lifetime ago from a high school recuit's view.

At least they face these challenges in a stable conference, which the B12 is not.

*their not there

(09-23-2017 07:47 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Nebraska: Big 12 to the Big 10 in 2011.
Positives: More $.
Negatives: Less wins. Less rivalry games. Will never fit in the Big 10. Nebraska is nothing like Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and even Iowa. They lost key Big 8/12 rivalry games and lost their recruiting connection to Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado.

Missouri: Big 12 to the SEC in 2012.
Positives: More $.
Negatives: Missouri is not a Southern state. I repeat, not Southern at all. Being conference mates with Florida and Georgia is ridiculous. There's that. Lost Kansas rivalry. Lost old Big 8 rivalries that go back to the first men. Do Mizzou games ever get put on tv anymore? I don't count a regional Southern conference network I've never watched before if that's who shows their games.

This sounds crazy to most, but I think they'd both be better off going back to the Big 12 with the rest of their historical rivals where they belong. If not? Eventually they'll make less money as losing and playing manufactured rivalry games means less butts in the seats. I said it right here first.

Nebraska- more money? You are joking- Right? Nebraska would have made more money by staying in the Big XII. Nebraska has not received their full share of Big Ten payments. That will happen this year.

Nebraska's rival was supposed to be Penn State. Penn State and Nebraska were in the same division when the Huskers entered the conference. Who could have guessed the Penn State scandal?

Nebraska will be fine. With a new athletic director and a new coach, Nebraska will build.

Missouri's challenges are not in athletics. Mizzou has empty dorms and (if I remember correctly) the student population is down 35%.

Mizzou is having a bad run. They had recently had good runs and will again.

(09-23-2017 09:31 PM)chess Wrote:  Missouri's challenges are not in athletics. Mizzou has empty dorms and (if I remember correctly) the student population is down 35%.

Their incoming Freshman class was down 35%. That's a bit different from enrollment being down 35%.

(09-23-2017 09:31 PM)chess Wrote:  Missouri's challenges are not in athletics. Mizzou has empty dorms and (if I remember correctly) the student population is down 35%.

That won't to start to really hurt for a year or two. Then, it will hurt bad.

I agree that Mizzou and Nebraska may not be the best fit for their respective conferences but I can see why they made the move. Stability and $$$. The one that stands out to me as a misfit and didn't need to happen at all was Maryland to the Big Ten. ACC is very stable and a solid conference and THE BEST for basketball as well which is Maryland's strong point. Not to mention Maryland has a long history with the ACC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

(09-23-2017 10:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I agree that Mizzou and Nebraska may not be the best fit for their respective conferences but I can see why they made the move. Stability and $$$. The one that stands out to me as a misfit and didn't need to happen at all was Maryland to the Big Ten. ACC is very stable and a solid conference and THE BEST for basketball as well which is Maryland's strong point. Not to mention Maryland has a long history with the ACC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

Maryland to B1G was definitely the most shocking realignment move ever.

(09-23-2017 10:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

I wish Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska,and Missouri never left. Go crazy for a mega conference lol add TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Utah, BYU, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse at the last round of realignment.

West: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa St
South: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Right, guys?? Anyone!?

The Big Ten thought that Missouri would still be available as an expansion partner for Rutgers, but then Missouri wound up being Texas A&M's expansion partner. The Big Ten should have gone straight to 14 with Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers. Maryland would have been left in the ACC, and West Virginia would be in the SEC.

The Big 12 still would have needed a team in short notice, so either Louisville shoots their way out of the Big East, or someone else does.

ECU were a nightmare to face in CUSA, regularly beating strong P5 programs. Its been a slow slide since joining the AAC. The real issue there is at the AD, but do they make this list?

(09-23-2017 10:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

I wish Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska,and Missouri never left. Go crazy for a mega conference lol add TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Utah, BYU, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse at the last round of realignment.

West: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa St
South: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Right, guys?? Anyone!?

Not many around here want to admit it, but it was the networks that have been picking the Big 12 apart. They are the ones that enticed away those properties that left. They are the ones that agreed to hold the rest in place with a generous TV package and played favorites with the T3 by giving Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas more than everyone else. They are the ones that balked at expansion with G5 schools, and they are the ones fighting over the prizes. And, they are the ones who figured out a decade ago that the only place the PAC could grow out of was the Big 12. They'll use their leverage over the Big 12 properties to gain concessions from the PAC.

If you look at the natural demographics, the money, and the fit it was the ACC that probably should have been the first victim. Their Northern properties would be more at home in the Eastern Big 10 (and better paid) and their Southernmost schools would have been more at home in the SEC (and better paid). Instead Skipper parked the Big East teams there that he was afraid Delany would grab. They kept the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida by guiding F.S.U. to the ACC and later adding Miami and they did that so the state wouldn't cost them too much for either their own ACC (100% of the rights) or the SEC. In fact they've followed that model in most of the large states where they hold rights and want to do it in Texas too. And they tried to do it in Virginia and North Carolina with the Va Tech & N.C. State to the SEC stuff 7 years ago.

The Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC have not been guilty of collusion. But they've all been guilty of doing the bidding of FOX and ESPN because that's who pays them.

So we get what we have today because of their agenda, and not our own. Why else would Missouri be in the SEC, Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big 10, and Colorado in the PAC. Of all of those Colorado is the best fit. I guarantee you nobody in Birmingham woke from a deep sleep and in a Citizen Kane like moment whispered, MIZZOU!

I have nothing against the Tigers and they are family now, but nobody in the SEC pondered them when we added A&M. A&M is a decent fit for the SEC. One of their oldest rivals is L.S.U. and former conference mate Arkansas. I'm just making one point. The idea came from the network which pays us.

i think the Big 10 took Nebraska because they wanted 2 divisions and wanted some balance to the West. So I don't hold the networks as responsible for that one other than they were trying to dislodge enough components of the Big 12 to make Texas and Oklahoma move. When nobody flinched over Nebraska's move it was time to nibble at A&M and Missouri, especially in the wake of Colorado's departure.

When FOX figured out that ESPN was trying to scoop the product and it became apparent that a bidding war for them would ensue the GOR's were slapped into place. The Big 12's to hold things in place until they could figure out a division of the property, and the ACC as a reaction to vulnerability when Maryland bolted. I think clearly they had an agenda 7 years ago that got fouled up and what we have been in since was an intentional stalemate until they could figure out how and when to kill off the Big 12. But that's just my opinion from following all of this.

(09-23-2017 10:46 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I agree that Mizzou and Nebraska may not be the best fit for their respective conferences but I can see why they made the move. Stability and $$$. The one that stands out to me as a misfit and didn't need to happen at all was Maryland to the Big Ten. ACC is very stable and a solid conference and THE BEST for basketball as well which is Maryland's strong point. Not to mention Maryland has a long history with the ACC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

Maryland to B1G was definitely the most shocking realignment move ever.

Rutgers was the most shocking move ever. I mean New Mexico St joining the PAC shocking.

(09-23-2017 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

I wish Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska,and Missouri never left. Go crazy for a mega conference lol add TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Utah, BYU, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse at the last round of realignment.

West: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa St
South: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Right, guys?? Anyone!?

Not many around here want to admit it, but it was the networks that have been picking the Big 12 apart. They are the ones that enticed away those properties that left. They are the ones that agreed to hold the rest in place with a generous TV package and played favorites with the T3 by giving Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas more than everyone else. They are the ones that balked at expansion with G5 schools, and they are the ones fighting over the prizes. And, they are the ones who figured out a decade ago that the only place the PAC could grow out of was the Big 12. They'll use their leverage over the Big 12 properties to gain concessions from the PAC.

If you look at the natural demographics, the money, and the fit it was the ACC that probably should have been the first victim. Their Northern properties would be more at home in the Eastern Big 10 (and better paid) and their Southernmost schools would have been more at home in the SEC (and better paid). Instead Skipper parked the Big East teams there that he was afraid Delany would grab. They kept the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida by guiding F.S.U. to the ACC and later adding Miami and they did that so the state wouldn't cost them too much for either their own ACC (100% of the rights) or the SEC. In fact they've followed that model in most of the large states where they hold rights and want to do it in Texas too. And they tried to do it in Virginia and North Carolina with the Va Tech & N.C. State to the SEC stuff 7 years ago.

The Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC have not been guilty of collusion. But they've all been guilty of doing the bidding of FOX and ESPN because that's who pays them.

So we get what we have today because of their agenda, and not our own. Why else would Missouri be in the SEC, Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big 10, and Colorado in the PAC. Of all of those Colorado is the best fit. I guarantee you nobody in Birmingham woke from a deep sleep and in a Citizen Kane like moment whispered, MIZZOU!

I have nothing against the Tigers and they are family now, but nobody in the SEC pondered them when we added A&M. A&M is a decent fit for the SEC. One of their oldest rivals is L.S.U. and former conference mate Arkansas. I'm just making one point. The idea came from the network which pays us.

i think the Big 10 took Nebraska because they wanted 2 divisions and wanted some balance to the West. So I don't hold the networks as responsible for that one other than they were trying to dislodge enough components of the Big 12 to make Texas and Oklahoma move. When nobody flinched over Nebraska's move it was time to nibble at A&M and Missouri, especially in the wake of Colorado's departure.

When FOX figured out that ESPN was trying to scoop the product and it became apparent that a bidding war for them would ensue the GOR's were slapped into place. The Big 12's to hold things in place until they could figure out a division of the property, and the ACC as a reaction to vulnerability when Maryland bolted. I think clearly they had an agenda 7 years ago that got fouled up and what we have been in since was an intentional stalemate until they could figure out how and when to kill off the Big 12. But that's just my opinion from following all of this.

I agree with you here. I love realignment but I wish money had nothing, or at least little, to do with it. I wish it were strictly based on rivalries, bad blood, and competition.

(09-23-2017 11:18 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:46 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I agree that Mizzou and Nebraska may not be the best fit for their respective conferences but I can see why they made the move. Stability and $$$. The one that stands out to me as a misfit and didn't need to happen at all was Maryland to the Big Ten. ACC is very stable and a solid conference and THE BEST for basketball as well which is Maryland's strong point. Not to mention Maryland has a long history with the ACC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

Maryland to B1G was definitely the most shocking realignment move ever.

Rutgers was the most shocking move ever. I mean New Mexico St joining the PAC shocking.

If New Mexico St gets invited to the PAC, I will snap.

(09-23-2017 09:31 PM)chess Wrote:  Missouri's challenges are not in athletics. Mizzou has empty dorms and (if I remember correctly) the student population is down 35%.

I think the other schools in the state had a steady increased in enrollment because of what went down at Missouri. They need to have a clean image for a while before the kids will come back.