Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #61
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

For the same reason you see commenters claiming the Pac-12 would invite schools like Texas Tech or Kansas State even without the Longhorns joining. It's just an unrealistic wish for everything to be tidied up as a follow-on to the move that particular commenter is really hoping for.
10-18-2017 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,910
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #62
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 03:04 PM by JRsec.)
10-18-2017 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,795
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #63
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-17-2017 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 11:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  He is correct about one thing, expansion isn't dead. It never ends. It has been a constant throughout the history of college sports. Also, the consolidation of conferences is generally consistent with what we are constantly seeing in large business - basically the number of entities in the market shrinks until a few large competitors are able to exercise dominance, generate profit margins that exceed those available in a more competitive market, but without reaching monopolistic levels.

Moving forward, I would look for the stronger/more financially stable conferences to continue to pick off schools where there is an opportunity to improve their attractiveness for television. This will continue to be successful when the targeted schools feels vulnerable.

The most likely future expansion scenario in my view is the Pac 12 targeting members of the Big 12. They have done so previously. Further, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 have an insufficient population base within their footprint to match the the B1G and SEC for success with a conference TV network. Finally, the P12 lacks inventory that can be shown in early afternoon time slots in the East.

If you will recall my first post here was about how college football as we know it was the subject of an ongoing hostile takeover because it was undervalued and disorganized. But it is the networks that have had the hand behind the conferences pushing the expansion.

Today the money is up because of the concentration on market penetration and the collectivization of brands. In other works product acquisition and product placement.

The whole board laughed when I posted that 5 years ago. I just don't hear that laughter anymore. I think most folks now are clued in as to what has been going on.

We are likely to have more acquisition of brands. We might even have some more culling of product.

But I think all of that is hold for now due to the FBI investigations. If the Feds find ample reason that profitable programs should be taxed (a decision for the Treasury Department) and that the organization of men's college basketball in inherently corrupt because the amateur status we could see a major paradigm shift in the actual model for men's hoops and college football.

I think the networks would actually welcome this kind of a shift because it solves a lot of problems for them ultimately.

The networks invest in college conferences mostly to acquire more rights to certain key schools. If we switch to a taxable for profit model then some of the weaker schools that have to subsidize such sports may be forced out or down.

Basketball brands will be helped because we will likely split into two departments in every university. Non profit sports would likely be under the Academic offices of a university because contributions to those sports would remain tax deductible. Amateurism could be more strictly enforced and that would be the bailiwick of the NCAA. The for profit sports (men's hoops, football and depending upon region baseball & hockey) would be handled by the Athletic Department which would lose tax exempt status.

If that happens then conferences as they are presently comported would be wholly revised. In the Big 10 you might see 7 or 8 schools who would remain for profit. In the PAC and the ACC you might have a few casualties as well. The SEC might see Vanderbilt drop out.

The networks would love this. Now there would be a lot fewer dud games and by necessity of filling a schedule many more content vs content games.

It wouldn't mean the death of football at the small college level but it would mean that true scholarship athletes playing for an education would mostly comprise their teams. They would merely become the top rung of an amateur division.

The top profit schools would no longer offer grant in aids. Instead their players would sign contracts to play for the school. They could profit from endorsements and their likenesses and names. They couldn't do so however by appearing in the schools jerseys or with school logos as that would be the commercial property of the school.

If drafted early by a professional team the school would be compensated by a buyout with early withdrawal penalty, but the player would be free to leave. And the player and athletic department would be subject to taxes. It is fair and probably the only thing that will ever help to clean up the present corruption.

I could see a for profit division of the Universities being comprised of 4 dozen or a few more schools. I would look for the basketball brands to improve their football and for the football brands to enhance their hoops.

In either event the Networks would have what they truly want. A smaller talent concentrated pool that yielded a compelling match ups every week of the season.

They could televise the non profit games on Saturday mornings and Friday nights. And put the for profit games on Saturday afternoons and prime time evenings.

So anyway what I'm suggesting is that there is a panorama of fallout to be sifted through and then exploited when the FBI gets through.

If there is no shift in the present payout model or in tax structure then look for the bidding war to be for Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and for one or two of their buddies to catch a break and for West Virginia to finally wind up closer to home.

Then in 2035 the ACC model will be assessed and if it has produced as claimed realignment will be over with for quite awhile. If the ACCN hasn't delivered as hoped then we could have yet another reshuffling.

A brilliant explanation for the direction college sports needs to go. I would add the caveat that whoever the governing body is in charge of the revenue sports that they actually have some teeth in their enforcement wing and schools caught breaking the rules would be threatened with expulsion from the revenue generating body. Schools would be free to stay in their conferences for non-revenue sports if the conference is willing to have them but they get kicked out and have to go to non-revenue NCAA football and men's basketball if in violation and schools would have a 5 year or more expulsion period before they could be readmitted, not merely an automatic reinstatement. I think this keeps the competition pure--a Baylor, UNC, or Louisville is not going to risk permanent exile while the USCs, Ohio State's, and Alabama's are not going to jeopardize their multimillion dollar cash cows to get one 5-star player.
10-18-2017 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #64
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Maybe because Nebraska was a better choice than Missouri and the Big Ten wasn't prepared at the time to add a second western school when the idea was to expand east next.

I agree that Iowa State brings no added value for the Big Ten, unfortunately.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 04:07 PM by Nerdlinger.)
10-18-2017 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,795
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #65
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
Regarding Nebraska and their supposed discontent with Big Ten membership I think those sentiments are misdirected. It's not their conference that's the problem, it's the fact that their program no longer has the allure it once did. They may be a historical blue blood but they are no longer a perennially relevant national title contender.

If I'm Nebraska I am upset with the Maryland and Rutgers adds--two schools on the opposite side of the footprint with no pedigree.

What I think Nebraska was really hoping for was the collapse of the Big 12 and the matriculation of some of their old Big 8 friends into the Big Ten. Nebraska would have much rather seen Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma come with them. When the Big Ten "allowed" the SEC to lay claim on Missouri that dream died.
10-18-2017 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #66
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-17-2017 12:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
Quote: Power conferences will become power conglomerates. They Amy cannibalize each other and combine. It will be a new day

Who's Amy? 03-wink

A cannibal.
10-18-2017 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #67
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 04:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Regarding Nebraska and their supposed discontent with Big Ten membership I think those sentiments are misdirected. It's not their conference that's the problem, it's the fact that their program no longer has the allure it once did. They may be a historical blue blood but they are no longer a perennially relevant national title contender.

If I'm Nebraska I am upset with the Maryland and Rutgers adds--two schools on the opposite side of the footprint with no pedigree.

What I think Nebraska was really hoping for was the collapse of the Big 12 and the matriculation of some of their old Big 8 friends into the Big Ten. Nebraska would have much rather seen Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma come with them. When the Big Ten "allowed" the SEC to lay claim on Missouri that dream died.

Yep. Nebraska just assumed their old Big 8 mates would join them in the Big 10 I think. They really didn’t think about the horrific consequences of uprooting century old rivalries in all sports. Money, tv, exposure, prestige, etc. made the schools forget the very reason why they sponsor athletics in the first place.
I have been saying for 6 or 7 years that Nebraska and Missouri made terrible decisions. I’ve been told for 6 or 7 years that I’m wrong. I’m still confident in my original opinion.
10-18-2017 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #68
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.

I'm still a year away from the dissertation phase, but each prof I have had at the PhD level says basically that we are not going to provide stunning new ideas, because it has already been done (in my particular field at least). So instead of "stunning new ideas" we are just trying to move the argument forward a step or move the marker an inch.

That being said, didn't the Big 10 also say if they knew that the SEC was going to take Mizzou they would have moved on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska all at once? So its not that they didn't want Missouri, but that they didn't want Missouri as number 12 or on its own without a larger expansion.

Now, taking Missouri means showing that they are "better" than the SEC, unless the SEC took a team from the Big 10 back, which is not going to happen.

And Iowa State to the Big 10 only makes sense because it is an AAU school within the Big 10s region, and they do have a strong fan base. Kansas/Iowa State as a combo isn't great for the Big 10, but it satisfies lots of things the Big 10 is looking at. If the SEC grabs OK/OK St, then each conference is "settling" for a school and getting a decent school with it. SEC is probably happier with OK than Big 10 is with Kansas, but Kansas is contiguous, with good academics, and a great bball program for the network.
10-18-2017 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,910
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #69
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 07:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.

I'm still a year away from the dissertation phase, but each prof I have had at the PhD level says basically that we are not going to provide stunning new ideas, because it has already been done (in my particular field at least). So instead of "stunning new ideas" we are just trying to move the argument forward a step or move the marker an inch.

That being said, didn't the Big 10 also say if they knew that the SEC was going to take Mizzou they would have moved on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska all at once? So its not that they didn't want Missouri, but that they didn't want Missouri as number 12 or on its own without a larger expansion.

Now, taking Missouri means showing that they are "better" than the SEC, unless the SEC took a team from the Big 10 back, which is not going to happen.

And Iowa State to the Big 10 only makes sense because it is an AAU school within the Big 10s region, and they do have a strong fan base. Kansas/Iowa State as a combo isn't great for the Big 10, but it satisfies lots of things the Big 10 is looking at. If the SEC grabs OK/OK St, then each conference is "settling" for a school and getting a decent school with it. SEC is probably happier with OK than Big 10 is with Kansas, but Kansas is contiguous, with good academics, and a great bball program for the network.

The Big 10 never said any such thing. Gordon Gee said it. It was widely assumed that Missouri and Kansas would be there for the taking if or when the Big 10 wanted them.

At the time Missouri was taken the Big 10 had no interest in them and Missouri basically had shopped themselves to the Big 10 so they were quite aware that Mizzou was on the market. They just probably never thought the SEC would be interested,and we weren't to begin with. We were willing to offer Oklahoma the slot with Texas A&M. The issue was Oklahoma wanted us to take OSU and at the time the SEC had to keep two slots open for another possibility to 16 so we had to say no. Missouri was recommended to us by the market conscious Mouse and the rest was history.

To understand the Big 10's pass you have to first be aware that the Big 10 had fairly significant penetration into the major cities of Kansas and Missouri already and the Big 10 was hoping to follow up on their soon to be coup of Maryland with Virginia and perhaps Georgia Tech. Those targets would have blown up the ACC and the SEC would have been more interested to the East as well. In the end the Big 12 might well have stabilized itself out of some key ACC remnants.

Feelers were out to the SEC by concerned ACC parties, and I'm talking about very key conference schools. So even the SEC wasn't fully invested in taking a school it didn't want from the Big 12 when prospects for much finer additions looked to be possible in the East.

But when the SEC learned that the ACC would stabilize we took Missouri. And for the record Missouri didn't beat out WVU. WVU had been sent a prospectus on what they had to do to be considered. That's why Luck wasted no time in doing what was necessary to get the Eers into the Big 12.

But both the Big 10 and SEC were very aware that Kansas and Missouri were on the board. There is no proof today that the Big 10 would take Kansas. The Big 10 is basketball rich and they don't need a drain on football revenue. Now to get Oklahoma to boost football, then maybe? Even Boren has admitted that he has no offer from the Big 10. It's mostly the Dude of Minnesota pushing that angle.

Slive once promised that all additions would be cultural fits. Kansas is not a cultural fit with the SEC. Now if the Big 12 is the only place to grow I could see that maybe we would consider Kansas with Oklahoma, but even then less enthusiastically than the Big 10 would feel about it and they aren't exactly enthused. Why buy the cow when you're already getting the milk? The Big 10 has some remuneration for the Kansas markets already. I don't know if the Jayhawks would pay the difference for the higher rate?

I would still think that Notre Dame and Virginia to 16 would be the grand slam for the Big 10.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 08:41 PM by JRsec.)
10-18-2017 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #70
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 02:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

For the same reason you see commenters claiming the Pac-12 would invite schools like Texas Tech or Kansas State even without the Longhorns joining. It's just an unrealistic wish for everything to be tidied up as a follow-on to the move that particular commenter is really hoping for.

While I don't think that Tech/TCU/OSU would get a bid without UT or OU, I don't think that a TCU/Tech or Oklahoma State/Tech bid to the Pac12 would be completely worthless. It would get the Pac12 into Texas and Oklahoma. And the Central time zone. Tech has 37k students. OSU is kind of small at 23k. TCU is tiny (10k students) But both would provide some value to the other members. It would open up recruiting for the other members. All three provide some value in every category for a addition (football credibility, support, market/recruiting, and fit). The problem is that they don't provide an unquestionably large value to the existing Pac12 schools.

Missouri is too far to really make much sense for the Pac12. Either way, Mizzou is likely in the SEC for a long time. They're pretty much off the table.

Baylor, K-State, and Iowa State don't really match up on those metrics. If the Big XII-II falls apart, you're correct in that some of the teams are NOT going to find a home.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017 08:27 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
10-18-2017 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #71
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 07:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.

I'm still a year away from the dissertation phase, but each prof I have had at the PhD level says basically that we are not going to provide stunning new ideas, because it has already been done (in my particular field at least). So instead of "stunning new ideas" we are just trying to move the argument forward a step or move the marker an inch.

That being said, didn't the Big 10 also say if they knew that the SEC was going to take Mizzou they would have moved on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska all at once? So its not that they didn't want Missouri, but that they didn't want Missouri as number 12 or on its own without a larger expansion.

Now, taking Missouri means showing that they are "better" than the SEC, unless the SEC took a team from the Big 10 back, which is not going to happen.

And Iowa State to the Big 10 only makes sense because it is an AAU school within the Big 10s region, and they do have a strong fan base. Kansas/Iowa State as a combo isn't great for the Big 10, but it satisfies lots of things the Big 10 is looking at. If the SEC grabs OK/OK St, then each conference is "settling" for a school and getting a decent school with it. SEC is probably happier with OK than Big 10 is with Kansas, but Kansas is contiguous, with good academics, and a great bball program for the network.

The Big 10 never said any such thing. Gordon Gee said it. It was widely assumed that Missouri and Kansas would be there for the taking if or when the Big 10 wanted them.

At the time Missouri was taken the Big 10 had no interest in them and Missouri basically had shopped themselves to the Big 10 so they were quite aware that Mizzou was on the market. They just probably never thought the SEC would be interested,and we weren't to begin with. We were willing to offer Oklahoma the slot with Texas A&M. The issue was Oklahoma wanted us to take OSU and at the time the SEC had to keep two slots open for another possibility to 16 so we had to say no. Missouri was recommended to us by the market conscious Mouse and the rest was history.

To understand the Big 10's pass you have to first be aware that the Big 10 had fairly significant penetration into the major cities of Kansas and Missouri already and the Big 10 was hoping to follow up on their soon to be coup of Maryland with Virginia and perhaps Georgia Tech. Those targets would have blown up the ACC and the SEC would have been more interested to the East as well. In the end the Big 12 might well have stabilized itself out of some key ACC remnants.

Feelers were out to the SEC by concerned ACC parties, and I'm talking about very key conference schools. So even the SEC wasn't fully invested in taking a school it didn't want from the Big 12 when prospects for much finer additions looked to be possible in the East.

But when the SEC learned that the ACC would stabilize we took Missouri. And for the record Missouri didn't beat out WVU. WVU had been sent a prospectus on what they had to do to be considered. That's why Luck wasted no time in doing what was necessary to get the Eers into the Big 12.

But both the Big 10 and SEC were very aware that Kansas and Missouri were on the board. There is no proof today that the Big 10 would take Kansas. The Big 10 is basketball rich and they don't need a drain on football revenue. Now to get Oklahoma to boost football, then maybe? Even Boren has admitted that he has no offer from the Big 10. It's mostly the Dude of Minnesota pushing that angle.

Slive once promised that all additions would be cultural fits. Kansas is not a cultural fit with the SEC. Now if the Big 12 is the only place to grow I could see that maybe we would consider Kansas with Oklahoma, but even then less enthusiastically than the Big 10 would feel about it and they aren't exactly enthused. Why buy the cow when you're already getting the milk? The Big 10 has some remuneration for the Kansas markets already. I don't know if the Jayhawks would pay the difference for the higher rate?

I would still think that Notre Dame and Virginia to 16 would be the grand slam for the Big 10.

Curious on what was required of WV by the SEC to gain admittance? I wasn’t aware that West Virginia to the SEC was controllable by WV because if so, WV would’ve done anything, and I mean anything to get into the SEC.
10-18-2017 10:00 PM
Find all posts by this user
Jjoey52 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,035
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 236
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #72
MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 07:00 AM)zibby Wrote:  Texas makes a deal with the ACC similar to Notre Dame's
Oklahoma and Kansas go to the SEC (Alabama and Auburn move to the East, Missouri moves to the West).
Big XII add Houston, Memphis and Cincinnati, is no longer considered a power conference.
AAC adds Rice.
C-USA and Sun Belt realign geographically.


This makes sense, except for one major point, why would the SEC want Kansas? They totally suck at football and the SEC lives for football except UK.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
10-18-2017 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user
Jjoey52 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,035
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 236
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #73
MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 08:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

For the same reason you see commenters claiming the Pac-12 would invite schools like Texas Tech or Kansas State even without the Longhorns joining. It's just an unrealistic wish for everything to be tidied up as a follow-on to the move that particular commenter is really hoping for.

While I don't think that Tech/TCU/OSU would get a bid without UT or OU, I don't think that a TCU/Tech or Oklahoma State/Tech bid to the Pac12 would be completely worthless. It would get the Pac12 into Texas and Oklahoma. And the Central time zone. Tech has 37k students. OSU is kind of small at 23k. TCU is tiny (10k students) But both would provide some value to the other members. It would open up recruiting for the other members. All three provide some value in every category for a addition (football credibility, support, market/recruiting, and fit). The problem is that they don't provide an unquestionably large value to the existing Pac12 schools.

Missouri is too far to really make much sense for the Pac12. Either way, Mizzou is likely in the SEC for a long time. They're pretty much off the table.

Baylor, K-State, and Iowa State don't really match up on those metrics. If the Big XII-II falls apart, you're correct in that some of the teams are NOT going to find a home.


Baylor, I State and K State could join MWC along with BYU.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
10-18-2017 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,732
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location:
Post: #74
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
The BXII leftovers of Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State and maybe Texas Tech or TCU will just salvage the league and invite BYU, Colorado St, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Cincinnati, and UCF/USF for BXII 3.0.
10-18-2017 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user
DawgNBama Online
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,320
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #75
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-17-2017 09:36 AM)f1do Wrote:  I like a good book every now and then--even though I know what I'm reading is fiction. In that vein, here is the latest that MHver3 threw out there starting yesterday in a burst of tweets after being silent for much of the past year. Arranged top-down for your reading ease:

Quote: It is time to return to share with you the rumblings of the college football world.

Expansion isn't dead. It's just been in hibernation.

Big12 stands to win B1G in the next few years. But they won't be the only winners.

With the downfall of cable subscribers the next round of expansion will be expansion through contraction.

PAC12 we hardly knew you.

Dismal ratings. Horrible attendance figures. Network a disaster. Pac12 days are numbered.

B10 stands to gain from Pac12 woes but so does B12 and maybe even ACC.

There is currently one school I. The B1G that wants out. New AD has promised some that he will bring them back home

Mormons don't fear. The B12 has never stopped lines of communication. Still the most attractive option not locked up.

Contiguous states be damned when B10 absorbs a new time zone.

Would Colorado in B10 be enough to keep Husker fan base happy? Or is B12 return imminent?

I would like to again apologize to UC and BYU fans for the debacle I left over.

It was a crazy day and multiple sources were confirming. Honestly it was so much closer to happening than you know.

The real meat and potatoes concerns corn and steak.

New AD has already reached out to people at UT and OU. Looking into mending bridges.

New AD at Nebraska also has reached out to certain coach he once helped hire at another school

Within 5 years the landscape of CFB will change dramatically. Television money will start to decline

Streaming money will be the name of the game.

Compelling historical matchups will rule again.

WVU will not be long in our current home.

B12 will survive. Thrive even. But WVU will be playing regional rivals yearly again.

Things are already in motion that will change everything. The NCAA may not survive but big-time College Sports will.

Fans of Uconn, USF, UCF, BYU. Cincy, Houston fear not. You will not be left behind.

When the dust settles most mid-major programs will still have a seat at the table.

Power conferences will become power conglomerates. They Amy cannibalize each other and combine. It will be a new day

No one knows better than B10. It's why they went for the short tv deal.

Conference branding will not be the major stream of income anymore.

The true money will come from the streaming and tv rights for a new American College Athletics Association

Ok so I made up the name. But not the model.

It's closer to a reality than most know.

When it does happen it will be a true split of about 80-90 schools that will no longer operate under the NCAA umbrella.

But again. This is all a few years off. There are immediate things happening though.

It's a very real possibility that in the short term Nebraska may negotiate its way out of the B10.

And if Nebraska did come home then B12 already has options to add number 12.

the media and fans have turned against Nebraska in B10. TV money is nothing in the larger picture.

There have even been whispers that WVU could take Nebraskas spot in B10 in a settlement for both sides and keep B12 at 10 members for now.

It would mean a realignment of divisions for B10. And one of this is coming from B10 offices. Just Nebraska.

I wish I had time to share more but that's all I can do for now.
I'm not sure if I agree with MHver3 or not. I will say this though: tradition is extremely important with fans, especially older ones. Case in point: awhile back, on the sec crazies forum (yes, this is a fake name: actual forum name not disclosed due to forum rules. Feel free to pm me for the true name of the forum), I proposed on the Georgia Bulldogs board about moving the Tennessee game to Thanksgiving and the GT (Tech) game to earlier in the year. The feedback I got back was so bad, I wound up leaving that forum. Underestimate the power of tradition to your peril. While Nebraska might be making $$'s hand over fist in the Big Ten, if the fans & donors buck it because of tradition, Nebraska will leave for the Big 12, no matter how silly it sounds. There is another option out there, and both UConn & Syracuse have been experimenting with it, and it is this: play your traditional rivals in non-conference play. My $$'s is on Nebraska getting OOC games with Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, etc., than returning to the Big 12, a compromise between NU's athletic department and its fans/donors.
10-19-2017 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,910
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #76
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 10:00 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 07:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.

I'm still a year away from the dissertation phase, but each prof I have had at the PhD level says basically that we are not going to provide stunning new ideas, because it has already been done (in my particular field at least). So instead of "stunning new ideas" we are just trying to move the argument forward a step or move the marker an inch.

That being said, didn't the Big 10 also say if they knew that the SEC was going to take Mizzou they would have moved on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska all at once? So its not that they didn't want Missouri, but that they didn't want Missouri as number 12 or on its own without a larger expansion.

Now, taking Missouri means showing that they are "better" than the SEC, unless the SEC took a team from the Big 10 back, which is not going to happen.

And Iowa State to the Big 10 only makes sense because it is an AAU school within the Big 10s region, and they do have a strong fan base. Kansas/Iowa State as a combo isn't great for the Big 10, but it satisfies lots of things the Big 10 is looking at. If the SEC grabs OK/OK St, then each conference is "settling" for a school and getting a decent school with it. SEC is probably happier with OK than Big 10 is with Kansas, but Kansas is contiguous, with good academics, and a great bball program for the network.

The Big 10 never said any such thing. Gordon Gee said it. It was widely assumed that Missouri and Kansas would be there for the taking if or when the Big 10 wanted them.

At the time Missouri was taken the Big 10 had no interest in them and Missouri basically had shopped themselves to the Big 10 so they were quite aware that Mizzou was on the market. They just probably never thought the SEC would be interested,and we weren't to begin with. We were willing to offer Oklahoma the slot with Texas A&M. The issue was Oklahoma wanted us to take OSU and at the time the SEC had to keep two slots open for another possibility to 16 so we had to say no. Missouri was recommended to us by the market conscious Mouse and the rest was history.

To understand the Big 10's pass you have to first be aware that the Big 10 had fairly significant penetration into the major cities of Kansas and Missouri already and the Big 10 was hoping to follow up on their soon to be coup of Maryland with Virginia and perhaps Georgia Tech. Those targets would have blown up the ACC and the SEC would have been more interested to the East as well. In the end the Big 12 might well have stabilized itself out of some key ACC remnants.

Feelers were out to the SEC by concerned ACC parties, and I'm talking about very key conference schools. So even the SEC wasn't fully invested in taking a school it didn't want from the Big 12 when prospects for much finer additions looked to be possible in the East.

But when the SEC learned that the ACC would stabilize we took Missouri. And for the record Missouri didn't beat out WVU. WVU had been sent a prospectus on what they had to do to be considered. That's why Luck wasted no time in doing what was necessary to get the Eers into the Big 12.

But both the Big 10 and SEC were very aware that Kansas and Missouri were on the board. There is no proof today that the Big 10 would take Kansas. The Big 10 is basketball rich and they don't need a drain on football revenue. Now to get Oklahoma to boost football, then maybe? Even Boren has admitted that he has no offer from the Big 10. It's mostly the Dude of Minnesota pushing that angle.

Slive once promised that all additions would be cultural fits. Kansas is not a cultural fit with the SEC. Now if the Big 12 is the only place to grow I could see that maybe we would consider Kansas with Oklahoma, but even then less enthusiastically than the Big 10 would feel about it and they aren't exactly enthused. Why buy the cow when you're already getting the milk? The Big 10 has some remuneration for the Kansas markets already. I don't know if the Jayhawks would pay the difference for the higher rate?

I would still think that Notre Dame and Virginia to 16 would be the grand slam for the Big 10.

Curious on what was required of WV by the SEC to gain admittance? I wasn’t aware that West Virginia to the SEC was controllable by WV because if so, WV would’ve done anything, and I mean anything to get into the SEC.

My understanding is that it consisted of what they had to do to meet SEC standards with regards to facilities, requisite number of sports offered, and required sports. To have complied they would have had to spend quite a bit. I'm sure some of that went to getting out of the Big East early so they could head to the Big 12. It was the second time they had applied. The did so in '91 but the application was tabled in part because they were just considered too far away at the time to be viable. Remember we were just expanding into South Carolina and Arkansas. Kentucky and Tennessee would have been the only schools within a reasonable drive of Morgantown.

The second application in 2010-1 was treated seriously or the prospectus wouldn't have been sent. But WVU had a lot of upgrades to complete. And at the time one sticking point was alcohol sales in campus venues. It is prohibited in the SEC although we are presently considering allowing it, we didn't in 2010-1.

BTW: We never voted to reject WVU's application either time. So those who say we turned them down are wrong. We tabled the first application for the reason I stated. The second time we didn't say no, we just said these are the things you need to do before we can vote on you.
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2017 12:47 AM by JRsec.)
10-19-2017 12:46 AM
Find all posts by this user
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #77
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-19-2017 12:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 09:36 AM)f1do Wrote:  I like a good book every now and then--even though I know what I'm reading is fiction. In that vein, here is the latest that MHver3 threw out there starting yesterday in a burst of tweets after being silent for much of the past year. Arranged top-down for your reading ease:

Quote: It is time to return to share with you the rumblings of the college football world.

Expansion isn't dead. It's just been in hibernation.

Big12 stands to win B1G in the next few years. But they won't be the only winners.

With the downfall of cable subscribers the next round of expansion will be expansion through contraction.

PAC12 we hardly knew you.

Dismal ratings. Horrible attendance figures. Network a disaster. Pac12 days are numbered.

B10 stands to gain from Pac12 woes but so does B12 and maybe even ACC.

There is currently one school I. The B1G that wants out. New AD has promised some that he will bring them back home

Mormons don't fear. The B12 has never stopped lines of communication. Still the most attractive option not locked up.

Contiguous states be damned when B10 absorbs a new time zone.

Would Colorado in B10 be enough to keep Husker fan base happy? Or is B12 return imminent?

I would like to again apologize to UC and BYU fans for the debacle I left over.

It was a crazy day and multiple sources were confirming. Honestly it was so much closer to happening than you know.

The real meat and potatoes concerns corn and steak.

New AD has already reached out to people at UT and OU. Looking into mending bridges.

New AD at Nebraska also has reached out to certain coach he once helped hire at another school

Within 5 years the landscape of CFB will change dramatically. Television money will start to decline

Streaming money will be the name of the game.

Compelling historical matchups will rule again.

WVU will not be long in our current home.

B12 will survive. Thrive even. But WVU will be playing regional rivals yearly again.

Things are already in motion that will change everything. The NCAA may not survive but big-time College Sports will.

Fans of Uconn, USF, UCF, BYU. Cincy, Houston fear not. You will not be left behind.

When the dust settles most mid-major programs will still have a seat at the table.

Power conferences will become power conglomerates. They Amy cannibalize each other and combine. It will be a new day

No one knows better than B10. It's why they went for the short tv deal.

Conference branding will not be the major stream of income anymore.

The true money will come from the streaming and tv rights for a new American College Athletics Association

Ok so I made up the name. But not the model.

It's closer to a reality than most know.

When it does happen it will be a true split of about 80-90 schools that will no longer operate under the NCAA umbrella.

But again. This is all a few years off. There are immediate things happening though.

It's a very real possibility that in the short term Nebraska may negotiate its way out of the B10.

And if Nebraska did come home then B12 already has options to add number 12.

the media and fans have turned against Nebraska in B10. TV money is nothing in the larger picture.

There have even been whispers that WVU could take Nebraskas spot in B10 in a settlement for both sides and keep B12 at 10 members for now.

It would mean a realignment of divisions for B10. And one of this is coming from B10 offices. Just Nebraska.

I wish I had time to share more but that's all I can do for now.
I'm not sure if I agree with MHver3 or not. I will say this though: tradition is extremely important with fans, especially older ones. Case in point: awhile back, on the sec crazies forum (yes, this is a fake name: actual forum name not disclosed due to forum rules. Feel free to pm me for the true name of the forum), I proposed on the Georgia Bulldogs board about moving the Tennessee game to Thanksgiving and the GT (Tech) game to earlier in the year. The feedback I got back was so bad, I wound up leaving that forum. Underestimate the power of tradition to your peril. While Nebraska might be making $$'s hand over fist in the Big Ten, if the fans & donors buck it because of tradition, Nebraska will leave for the Big 12, no matter how silly it sounds. There is another option out there, and both UConn & Syracuse have been experimenting with it, and it is this: play your traditional rivals in non-conference play. My $$'s is on Nebraska getting OOC games with Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, etc., than returning to the Big 12, a compromise between NU's athletic department and its fans/donors.

You must be young. UGA almost never played Tennessee until the SEC went to divisions. It has none of the intensity of Florida, Georgia Tech or Auburn. Or really South Carolina or Clemson, who they don't play that frequently anymore. You not only wanted to change traditions, you didn't understand them.
10-19-2017 07:08 AM
Find all posts by this user
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,881
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 898
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #78
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 07:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.

I'm still a year away from the dissertation phase, but each prof I have had at the PhD level says basically that we are not going to provide stunning new ideas, because it has already been done (in my particular field at least). So instead of "stunning new ideas" we are just trying to move the argument forward a step or move the marker an inch.

That being said, didn't the Big 10 also say if they knew that the SEC was going to take Mizzou they would have moved on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska all at once? So its not that they didn't want Missouri, but that they didn't want Missouri as number 12 or on its own without a larger expansion.

Now, taking Missouri means showing that they are "better" than the SEC, unless the SEC took a team from the Big 10 back, which is not going to happen.

And Iowa State to the Big 10 only makes sense because it is an AAU school within the Big 10s region, and they do have a strong fan base. Kansas/Iowa State as a combo isn't great for the Big 10, but it satisfies lots of things the Big 10 is looking at. If the SEC grabs OK/OK St, then each conference is "settling" for a school and getting a decent school with it. SEC is probably happier with OK than Big 10 is with Kansas, but Kansas is contiguous, with good academics, and a great bball program for the network.

The Big 10 never said any such thing. Gordon Gee said it. It was widely assumed that Missouri and Kansas would be there for the taking if or when the Big 10 wanted them.

At the time Missouri was taken the Big 10 had no interest in them and Missouri basically had shopped themselves to the Big 10 so they were quite aware that Mizzou was on the market. They just probably never thought the SEC would be interested,and we weren't to begin with. We were willing to offer Oklahoma the slot with Texas A&M. The issue was Oklahoma wanted us to take OSU and at the time the SEC had to keep two slots open for another possibility to 16 so we had to say no. Missouri was recommended to us by the market conscious Mouse and the rest was history.

To understand the Big 10's pass you have to first be aware that the Big 10 had fairly significant penetration into the major cities of Kansas and Missouri already and the Big 10 was hoping to follow up on their soon to be coup of Maryland with Virginia and perhaps Georgia Tech. Those targets would have blown up the ACC and the SEC would have been more interested to the East as well. In the end the Big 12 might well have stabilized itself out of some key ACC remnants.

Feelers were out to the SEC by concerned ACC parties, and I'm talking about very key conference schools. So even the SEC wasn't fully invested in taking a school it didn't want from the Big 12 when prospects for much finer additions looked to be possible in the East.

But when the SEC learned that the ACC would stabilize we took Missouri. And for the record Missouri didn't beat out WVU. WVU had been sent a prospectus on what they had to do to be considered. That's why Luck wasted no time in doing what was necessary to get the Eers into the Big 12.

But both the Big 10 and SEC were very aware that Kansas and Missouri were on the board. There is no proof today that the Big 10 would take Kansas. The Big 10 is basketball rich and they don't need a drain on football revenue. Now to get Oklahoma to boost football, then maybe? Even Boren has admitted that he has no offer from the Big 10. It's mostly the Dude of Minnesota pushing that angle.

Slive once promised that all additions would be cultural fits. Kansas is not a cultural fit with the SEC. Now if the Big 12 is the only place to grow I could see that maybe we would consider Kansas with Oklahoma, but even then less enthusiastically than the Big 10 would feel about it and they aren't exactly enthused. Why buy the cow when you're already getting the milk? The Big 10 has some remuneration for the Kansas markets already. I don't know if the Jayhawks would pay the difference for the higher rate?

I would still think that Notre Dame and Virginia to 16 would be the grand slam for the Big 10.

Well, that is likely a swing and a miss for Delany.

ND is not a cultural fit in the Big Ten.
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2017 07:12 AM by TerryD.)
10-19-2017 07:12 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
orangefan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,208
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 354
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #79
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-18-2017 10:00 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 07:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:43 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Just out of curiosity.....

Why do I see so many people, when talking about realignment/expansion, have the B1G taking some combo of Iowa State and Missouri?

The B1G didn't want Missouri 7 years ago, why would they want them now?

Iowa State? Really? Talk about ZERO value added.

Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.

I'm still a year away from the dissertation phase, but each prof I have had at the PhD level says basically that we are not going to provide stunning new ideas, because it has already been done (in my particular field at least). So instead of "stunning new ideas" we are just trying to move the argument forward a step or move the marker an inch.

That being said, didn't the Big 10 also say if they knew that the SEC was going to take Mizzou they would have moved on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska all at once? So its not that they didn't want Missouri, but that they didn't want Missouri as number 12 or on its own without a larger expansion.

Now, taking Missouri means showing that they are "better" than the SEC, unless the SEC took a team from the Big 10 back, which is not going to happen.

And Iowa State to the Big 10 only makes sense because it is an AAU school within the Big 10s region, and they do have a strong fan base. Kansas/Iowa State as a combo isn't great for the Big 10, but it satisfies lots of things the Big 10 is looking at. If the SEC grabs OK/OK St, then each conference is "settling" for a school and getting a decent school with it. SEC is probably happier with OK than Big 10 is with Kansas, but Kansas is contiguous, with good academics, and a great bball program for the network.

The Big 10 never said any such thing. Gordon Gee said it. It was widely assumed that Missouri and Kansas would be there for the taking if or when the Big 10 wanted them.

At the time Missouri was taken the Big 10 had no interest in them and Missouri basically had shopped themselves to the Big 10 so they were quite aware that Mizzou was on the market. They just probably never thought the SEC would be interested,and we weren't to begin with. We were willing to offer Oklahoma the slot with Texas A&M. The issue was Oklahoma wanted us to take OSU and at the time the SEC had to keep two slots open for another possibility to 16 so we had to say no. Missouri was recommended to us by the market conscious Mouse and the rest was history.

To understand the Big 10's pass you have to first be aware that the Big 10 had fairly significant penetration into the major cities of Kansas and Missouri already and the Big 10 was hoping to follow up on their soon to be coup of Maryland with Virginia and perhaps Georgia Tech. Those targets would have blown up the ACC and the SEC would have been more interested to the East as well. In the end the Big 12 might well have stabilized itself out of some key ACC remnants.

Feelers were out to the SEC by concerned ACC parties, and I'm talking about very key conference schools. So even the SEC wasn't fully invested in taking a school it didn't want from the Big 12 when prospects for much finer additions looked to be possible in the East.

But when the SEC learned that the ACC would stabilize we took Missouri. And for the record Missouri didn't beat out WVU. WVU had been sent a prospectus on what they had to do to be considered. That's why Luck wasted no time in doing what was necessary to get the Eers into the Big 12.

But both the Big 10 and SEC were very aware that Kansas and Missouri were on the board. There is no proof today that the Big 10 would take Kansas. The Big 10 is basketball rich and they don't need a drain on football revenue. Now to get Oklahoma to boost football, then maybe? Even Boren has admitted that he has no offer from the Big 10. It's mostly the Dude of Minnesota pushing that angle.

Slive once promised that all additions would be cultural fits. Kansas is not a cultural fit with the SEC. Now if the Big 12 is the only place to grow I could see that maybe we would consider Kansas with Oklahoma, but even then less enthusiastically than the Big 10 would feel about it and they aren't exactly enthused. Why buy the cow when you're already getting the milk? The Big 10 has some remuneration for the Kansas markets already. I don't know if the Jayhawks would pay the difference for the higher rate?

I would still think that Notre Dame and Virginia to 16 would be the grand slam for the Big 10.

Curious on what was required of WV by the SEC to gain admittance? I wasn’t aware that West Virginia to the SEC was controllable by WV because if so, WV would’ve done anything, and I mean anything to get into the SEC.

Add 3 million residents/1 million TV HH.07-coffee3
10-19-2017 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user
Sellular1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,233
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 186
I Root For: USF
Location: The ATL
Post: #80
RE: MHver3 rises like a phoenix....more realignment talk
(10-19-2017 12:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 10:00 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 07:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-18-2017 02:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Because the logic behind such assertions is an extremely common one on message boards. Post hoc ergo propter hoc in combination with circular argumentation by stating my conclusion is true because I said it was true. Premise=conclusion=premise. I read these all day every day. I chalk it up to several generations who never studied logic, never had to truly support their argument in a book report, theme paper, or any research project, and then graduated and headed to State U and never once had to write a research paper and defend it, and then got a pass on a crappy thesis, and passed novelty off as research for their dissertation. Then those guys teach the new group.

And that in itself is an example of a circular argument, this is the new knowledge and truth because we say it is, and the process is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because y follows x, x must be the cause.

I've often wondered why since the purpose of a great dissertation is to research a subject and to provide new incites or possibly new conclusions for that field of study that we continue to accept dissertations that don't add to the understanding of the truth but do offer novel or sensational claims. At what point has the truth been ascertained and novelty becomes the objective? Truth is either a goal to be discovered or a gestalt. Everything else is either false or heretical.

I'm still a year away from the dissertation phase, but each prof I have had at the PhD level says basically that we are not going to provide stunning new ideas, because it has already been done (in my particular field at least). So instead of "stunning new ideas" we are just trying to move the argument forward a step or move the marker an inch.

That being said, didn't the Big 10 also say if they knew that the SEC was going to take Mizzou they would have moved on Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska all at once? So its not that they didn't want Missouri, but that they didn't want Missouri as number 12 or on its own without a larger expansion.

Now, taking Missouri means showing that they are "better" than the SEC, unless the SEC took a team from the Big 10 back, which is not going to happen.

And Iowa State to the Big 10 only makes sense because it is an AAU school within the Big 10s region, and they do have a strong fan base. Kansas/Iowa State as a combo isn't great for the Big 10, but it satisfies lots of things the Big 10 is looking at. If the SEC grabs OK/OK St, then each conference is "settling" for a school and getting a decent school with it. SEC is probably happier with OK than Big 10 is with Kansas, but Kansas is contiguous, with good academics, and a great bball program for the network.

The Big 10 never said any such thing. Gordon Gee said it. It was widely assumed that Missouri and Kansas would be there for the taking if or when the Big 10 wanted them.

At the time Missouri was taken the Big 10 had no interest in them and Missouri basically had shopped themselves to the Big 10 so they were quite aware that Mizzou was on the market. They just probably never thought the SEC would be interested,and we weren't to begin with. We were willing to offer Oklahoma the slot with Texas A&M. The issue was Oklahoma wanted us to take OSU and at the time the SEC had to keep two slots open for another possibility to 16 so we had to say no. Missouri was recommended to us by the market conscious Mouse and the rest was history.

To understand the Big 10's pass you have to first be aware that the Big 10 had fairly significant penetration into the major cities of Kansas and Missouri already and the Big 10 was hoping to follow up on their soon to be coup of Maryland with Virginia and perhaps Georgia Tech. Those targets would have blown up the ACC and the SEC would have been more interested to the East as well. In the end the Big 12 might well have stabilized itself out of some key ACC remnants.

Feelers were out to the SEC by concerned ACC parties, and I'm talking about very key conference schools. So even the SEC wasn't fully invested in taking a school it didn't want from the Big 12 when prospects for much finer additions looked to be possible in the East.

But when the SEC learned that the ACC would stabilize we took Missouri. And for the record Missouri didn't beat out WVU. WVU had been sent a prospectus on what they had to do to be considered. That's why Luck wasted no time in doing what was necessary to get the Eers into the Big 12.

But both the Big 10 and SEC were very aware that Kansas and Missouri were on the board. There is no proof today that the Big 10 would take Kansas. The Big 10 is basketball rich and they don't need a drain on football revenue. Now to get Oklahoma to boost football, then maybe? Even Boren has admitted that he has no offer from the Big 10. It's mostly the Dude of Minnesota pushing that angle.

Slive once promised that all additions would be cultural fits. Kansas is not a cultural fit with the SEC. Now if the Big 12 is the only place to grow I could see that maybe we would consider Kansas with Oklahoma, but even then less enthusiastically than the Big 10 would feel about it and they aren't exactly enthused. Why buy the cow when you're already getting the milk? The Big 10 has some remuneration for the Kansas markets already. I don't know if the Jayhawks would pay the difference for the higher rate?

I would still think that Notre Dame and Virginia to 16 would be the grand slam for the Big 10.

Curious on what was required of WV by the SEC to gain admittance? I wasn’t aware that West Virginia to the SEC was controllable by WV because if so, WV would’ve done anything, and I mean anything to get into the SEC.

My understanding is that it consisted of what they had to do to meet SEC standards with regards to facilities, requisite number of sports offered, and required sports. To have complied they would have had to spend quite a bit. I'm sure some of that went to getting out of the Big East early so they could head to the Big 12. It was the second time they had applied. The did so in '91 but the application was tabled in part because they were just considered too far away at the time to be viable. Remember we were just expanding into South Carolina and Arkansas. Kentucky and Tennessee would have been the only schools within a reasonable drive of Morgantown.

The second application in 2010-1 was treated seriously or the prospectus wouldn't have been sent. But WVU had a lot of upgrades to complete. And at the time one sticking point was alcohol sales in campus venues. It is prohibited in the SEC although we are presently considering allowing it, we didn't in 2010-1.

BTW: We never voted to reject WVU's application either time. So those who say we turned them down are wrong. We tabled the first application for the reason I stated. The second time we didn't say no, we just said these are the things you need to do before we can vote on you.

RJ, do you work for the SEC in some capacity? I'm just wondering why you always respond to posts in the 1st person whenever somebody brings up the SEC. Serious question.
10-19-2017 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.