(09-18-2015 11:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Blah blah blah, The SEC isn't as powerful as you want to believe nor are they the destination you want to portray the conference as. The money that these schools make from sports is considerable but its just a small part of what defines the school.

The people that run Oklahoma do not prefer the SEC over The Big Ten, period.

Virginia Tech already said they don't want to join the SEC. You are delusional.

Sure, sure pal. Academic "perception" matters and everyone knows playing football against certain select institutions automatically increases the amount of research money available. Wait...

That and everyone knows AAU schools are chomping at the bit to help other schools get in on the club. They are totally known for sharing the wealth...

Oh and I'm sure every school in the country is just chomping at the bit to get into the Big Ten. That's why so many schools have yet to make the jump despite having that opportunity. Wait...

And nobody wants to be in the "slummy, lowly" SEC which is precisely why 2 AAU schools joined the league a few years ago. Wait...

On a serious note, I never ceased to be stunned by the inability of academicians to be practical. This "perception" and ego game they play is beyond pretentious. Frankly, they aren't as intelligent as they would have us believe. The athletic correlation to academics is about exposure, not affiliation.

Missouri only joined when The Big Ten turned them down. Missouri simply said to you guys that the SEC is better than the big 12, not that they think The SEC is better than The Big Ten.

In regards to A&M? What other choice did they have? Their culture is perfect for the SEC. It's not that the SEC isn't worthy of AAU schools, but it will never be a prime destination based upon their AAU inclusion. It's a secondary consideration at best, which is why the SEC was just the second choice of Missouri.

Let me just say this though, I am in full agreement with you on that last part of your post. Don't take my argument to mean I think all of this makes sense. It's just how it is and I accept that as the truth.

How about:

TCU, Baylor, Texas, West Virginia to ACC
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to SEC
Texas Tech, Kansas, Iowa State and Houston to PAC

ACC gets to reconnect the north and south sides plus get into the state of Texas in a big way. FSU and Clemson get four more football-first schools. Shorthorn Network absorbed into the ACCN. Notre Dame keeps their five games per year deal but now can spread their influence deeper into the southwest.

PAC doesn't get the whorns but pick up two AAU schools, a state flagship, a prime basketball program, a program with a large alumni base in Texas plus another that is a Tier One research school, in a region with a higher percentage of football support that gives them a new time zone for exposure purposes.

Of course, we've seen presidents allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good so this goes nowhere.

(09-18-2015 09:53 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 06:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 05:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 01:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The announcement of the new interim AD at Texas signals a change of directions. A coolness toward the PAC has now set in, and an intentional warming to Oklahoma position is now beginning. Together the two might be able to work for dissolution.

It will be interesting to watch developments going forward.

From another board, not me.

ESPN and the ACC have made tremendous progress on the structure and contract regarding an ACC Network. Would not be surprised if you see a press conference involving the ACC Network in and around the ACC Championship game. Notre Dame has been actively involved in the ACC Network negotiations, so also would not be surprised to see a renegotiation of the ACC-ESPN television contract.

A few notes on the Longhorn Network, which explains why Texas will NEVER join the PAC 12, SEC, or BIG Ten;
ESPN pays Texas 11 million per year beginning in 2011, with a 3% increase each season until ESPN makes its investment back. Then Texas receives 50% of all revenue.
Longhorn Network Contract prevent Texas from being a part of any other network until 2031.

The only option for Texas in realignment is joining the ACC under a similar agreement as Notre Dame currently has in place. Texas sees itself and can justify itself as a Notre Dame on the National stage. Texas is far more like Notre Dame than they are Ohio State or USC or Alabama, and that is how they feel. So point here is any shake up in the Big 12 will result in Texas going independent in football and moving Olympic Sports to the ACC, and the ACC will welcome them with open arms! On that note Oklahoma is not happy, and unless the Big 12 expands and adds its own network, Oklahoma will leave, and the GOR will not stop Oklahoma. Which is why their is enormous pressure on the Big 12 Expansion Committee to design an expansion solution that has long term benefits for Oklahoma and others within the Big 12. This is why I believe in the end that expansion design will be two phased with (4) schools over 5 years, and the Big 12 will eventually be the Big 14. Should expansion not occur, then the Big 12 dissolves and a new conference will form (as Coach Tubs has mentioned in the past). A new conference will include Big leftovers, who did not join other P5 conferences, along with AAC and MWC members.

My personal opinion, is that the Big 12 will dissolve, too many differences to unify them for expansion. Texas will join the ACC in Olympic Sports and be independent in Football, as is Notre Dame. Kansas and Oklahoma will move to the Big Ten. While the PAC 12 in collusion with the Big 10 moves to add (2) schools from TCU, Baylor, and Texas TECH, as well as Oklahoma State, and Kansas St. This collusion effort helps both conferences in cross-alignment. The SEC has no interest in remaining Big 12 members, nor does the ACC, as there is no financial benefit to either. I believe the remaining Big 12 schools, some ACC members, MWC members, and BYU form a new national conference, and yes this conference will be a P5 Conference. At this point the FBS splits, and you see the NCAA reorganize as follows;
FBS
FBS-IA
FCS - Several FCS schools move up to FBS-IA, which leads to new conferences, and new revenue for broadcasters.

Neat perspective. Can you post the link?

Neat perspective? It is basically my concept with a little more weight thrown in the PAC's direction while saying the SEC and ACC stay put.

It's not that great of an idea considering the person made silly changes to a solid concept that they most assuredly saw here.....by me.

That's why I want the link.

Here
http://cincinnati.247sports.com/Board/39...116?Page=4

Thank you for the link. I find it particularly difficult to speak with Cincy fans about where things are going because of what Cincinnati is. It is an excellent institution with a strong history in football and in basketball. If any school deserves a shot at moving up at this point, it is Cincy. Unfortunately though, I just don't see it happening. I have had conversations with a few Cincy posters that have contacted me privately and not once have any of them been disrespectful so I drop the "persona" for the Cincy folks because they deserve it.

Cincy will remain in the AAC permanently. When you tell Cincy folks that, they understandably see that as a negative thing but honestly it isn't. The AAC is going to become more than it is right now and it will be a great path for a school like Cincy to get national recognition. In fact I think it will be a better route than Cincy would find in either the big 12 or in The ACC.

(09-19-2015 09:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Thank you for the link. I find it particularly difficult to speak with Cincy fans about where things are going because of what Cincinnati is. It is an excellent institution with a strong history in football and in basketball. If any school deserves a shot at moving up at this point, it is Cincy. Unfortunately though, I just don't see it happening. I have had conversations with a few Cincy posters that have contacted me privately and not once have any of them been disrespectful so I drop the "persona" for the Cincy folks because they deserve it.

Cincy will remain in the AAC permanently. When you tell Cincy folks that, they understandably see that as a negative thing but honestly it isn't. The AAC is going to become more than it is right now and it will be a great path for a school like Cincy to get national recognition. In fact I think it will be a better route than Cincy would find in either the big 12 or in The ACC.

More up to Texas, Oklahoma, Big 12 expansion committee, we have nothing to do with realignment. Cincy is anything but permanent, if you use history as an example. We have been in the MVC, MAC, Metro, Independent, CUSA, Big East, AAC, Great Midwest, Buckeye Athletic, Ohio Athletic. Nothing is permanent. Of course I did not make my prior about UC is any manner.

(09-19-2015 09:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Thank you for the link. I find it particularly difficult to speak with Cincy fans about where things are going because of what Cincinnati is. It is an excellent institution with a strong history in football and in basketball. If any school deserves a shot at moving up at this point, it is Cincy. Unfortunately though, I just don't see it happening. I have had conversations with a few Cincy posters that have contacted me privately and not once have any of them been disrespectful so I drop the "persona" for the Cincy folks because they deserve it.

Cincy will remain in the AAC permanently. When you tell Cincy folks that, they understandably see that as a negative thing but honestly it isn't. The AAC is going to become more than it is right now and it will be a great path for a school like Cincy to get national recognition. In fact I think it will be a better route than Cincy would find in either the big 12 or in The ACC.

I agree with you about the AAC. Would it be wise for them to expand with teams like NIU & Toledo? Their TV contract seems undervalued.

(09-21-2015 10:45 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 09:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Thank you for the link. I find it particularly difficult to speak with Cincy fans about where things are going because of what Cincinnati is. It is an excellent institution with a strong history in football and in basketball. If any school deserves a shot at moving up at this point, it is Cincy. Unfortunately though, I just don't see it happening. I have had conversations with a few Cincy posters that have contacted me privately and not once have any of them been disrespectful so I drop the "persona" for the Cincy folks because they deserve it.

Cincy will remain in the AAC permanently. When you tell Cincy folks that, they understandably see that as a negative thing but honestly it isn't. The AAC is going to become more than it is right now and it will be a great path for a school like Cincy to get national recognition. In fact I think it will be a better route than Cincy would find in either the big 12 or in The ACC.

I agree with you about the AAC. Would it be wise for them to expand with teams like NIU & Toledo? Their TV contract seems undervalued.

I have NIU in my AAC prediction quite often but Toledo? NIU has shown continuously strong teams and thus they have a strong program. Toledo on the other hand is having a great season but is that how it is continuously? If I was running the AAC I think I would just stick with Cincy as our Ohio program.

(09-19-2015 12:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 11:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Blah blah blah, The SEC isn't as powerful as you want to believe nor are they the destination you want to portray the conference as. The money that these schools make from sports is considerable but its just a small part of what defines the school.

The people that run Oklahoma do not prefer the SEC over The Big Ten, period.

Virginia Tech already said they don't want to join the SEC. You are delusional.

Sure, sure pal. Academic "perception" matters and everyone knows playing football against certain select institutions automatically increases the amount of research money available. Wait...

That and everyone knows AAU schools are chomping at the bit to help other schools get in on the club. They are totally known for sharing the wealth...

Oh and I'm sure every school in the country is just chomping at the bit to get into the Big Ten. That's why so many schools have yet to make the jump despite having that opportunity. Wait...

And nobody wants to be in the "slummy, lowly" SEC which is precisely why 2 AAU schools joined the league a few years ago. Wait...

On a serious note, I never ceased to be stunned by the inability of academicians to be practical. This "perception" and ego game they play is beyond pretentious. Frankly, they aren't as intelligent as they would have us believe. The athletic correlation to academics is about exposure, not affiliation.

Missouri only joined when The Big Ten turned them down. Missouri simply said to you guys that the SEC is better than the big 12, not that they think The SEC is better than The Big Ten.

In regards to A&M? What other choice did they have? Their culture is perfect for the SEC. It's not that the SEC isn't worthy of AAU schools, but it will never be a prime destination based upon their AAU inclusion. It's a secondary consideration at best, which is why the SEC was just the second choice of Missouri.

Let me just say this though, I am in full agreement with you on that last part of your post. Don't take my argument to mean I think all of this makes sense. It's just how it is and I accept that as the truth.

Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

(09-21-2015 06:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 12:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 11:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Blah blah blah, The SEC isn't as powerful as you want to believe nor are they the destination you want to portray the conference as. The money that these schools make from sports is considerable but its just a small part of what defines the school.

The people that run Oklahoma do not prefer the SEC over The Big Ten, period.

Virginia Tech already said they don't want to join the SEC. You are delusional.

Sure, sure pal. Academic "perception" matters and everyone knows playing football against certain select institutions automatically increases the amount of research money available. Wait...

That and everyone knows AAU schools are chomping at the bit to help other schools get in on the club. They are totally known for sharing the wealth...

Oh and I'm sure every school in the country is just chomping at the bit to get into the Big Ten. That's why so many schools have yet to make the jump despite having that opportunity. Wait...

And nobody wants to be in the "slummy, lowly" SEC which is precisely why 2 AAU schools joined the league a few years ago. Wait...

On a serious note, I never ceased to be stunned by the inability of academicians to be practical. This "perception" and ego game they play is beyond pretentious. Frankly, they aren't as intelligent as they would have us believe. The athletic correlation to academics is about exposure, not affiliation.

Missouri only joined when The Big Ten turned them down. Missouri simply said to you guys that the SEC is better than the big 12, not that they think The SEC is better than The Big Ten.

In regards to A&M? What other choice did they have? Their culture is perfect for the SEC. It's not that the SEC isn't worthy of AAU schools, but it will never be a prime destination based upon their AAU inclusion. It's a secondary consideration at best, which is why the SEC was just the second choice of Missouri.

Let me just say this though, I am in full agreement with you on that last part of your post. Don't take my argument to mean I think all of this makes sense. It's just how it is and I accept that as the truth.

Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

The Big 10 didn't want Missouri because they wanted Eastern expansion and the markets they would bring for the BTN. The Big 10 already had penetration into the Missouri market and compared to Maryland and New Jersey they didn't add enough eyeballs. And at the time the Big 10 thought that they would be able to crack into Virginia and North Carolina. The SEC got Texas A&M when a bigger move of Big 12 names to the ACC was stopped by the Carolina block. The SEC was poised to get Virginia Tech and N.C. State. ESPN helped the SEC land A&M and Missouri instead. A&M alone made up for not landing the North Carolina and Virginia markets which are nevertheless still out there, albeit that they look much less likely now. Missouri was good leave by the Big 10 which got what they wanted, and a nice get for the SEC because of it. But the ACC issue still has both the SEC and Big 10 looking east, only now it also has both jockeying for position should they have to go West again.

We both want into North Carolina and Virginia in the East and we would both settle for two of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas to the West. Anything less for either of us would have to be a compromise between us. Texas and Oklahoma will milk this situation for all they can get.

IMO both Slive and Delany screwed the pooch by not just jumping to 16 when it became apparent that the ACC was stiffening. Their greed for Eastern expansion led them both to ignore the options to the West, which gave time for the GOR's to be put in place by the networks. I'm not sure either of us would have landed Texas, but I do believe either of us could have gone to 16 with 4 from the Big 12 prior to the GOR.

Delany could have easily landed Kansas and Oklahoma along with Rutgers and Maryland. Slive could easily have landed Oklahoma with A&M and Missouri and in that mix OSU would not have stuck out like a sore thumb. Who knows? Under the pressure of breaking up the Big 12 the SEC might have landed Kansas or West Virginia instead of OSU and still made it work.

(09-21-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 06:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

The Big 10 didn't want Missouri because they wanted Eastern expansion and the markets they would bring for the BTN. The Big 10 already had penetration into the Missouri market and compared to Maryland and New Jersey they didn't add enough eyeballs. And at the time the Big 10 thought that they would be able to crack into Virginia and North Carolina. The SEC got Texas A&M when a bigger move of Big 12 names to the ACC was stopped by the Carolina block. The SEC was poised to get Virginia Tech and N.C. State. ESPN helped the SEC land A&M and Missouri instead. A&M alone made up for not landing the North Carolina and Virginia markets which are nevertheless still out there, albeit that they look much less likely now. Missouri was good leave by the Big 10 which got what they wanted, and a nice get for the SEC because of it. But the ACC issue still has both the SEC and Big 10 looking east, only now it also has both jockeying for position should they have to go West again.

I get what you're saying and I do agree that Mizzou was more valuable to the SEC than the Big Ten. However, I do think they are still attractive to the Big Ten in the right circumstance just as FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech would be attractive to the SEC despite not adding any new markets.

If the Big Ten moves to 16, 18, or even 20 then Mizzou would have fit nicely under any circumstance. The timing wasn't right and I understand Rutgers helped get more eyeballs in NY/NJ, but I can't buy that the B1G gave a permanent, unequivocal "No" to Mizzou. I just don't see the evidence of that.

The CIC, while a nice organization that provides benefit, still only adds new members when the Big Ten first expands athletically. To me at least, that doesn't sound like an organization that makes or breaks an institution and could lead that institution to the promised land, so to speak. I can't imagine the academicians would be terribly pleased with requiring athletic affiliation in order to qualify for academic inclusion in the group unless, of course, the relative impact was minor and was far outpaced by other sorts of academic partnerships.

I think Mizzou, in part, also chose the SEC because of the demographic trends in the Sun Belt region. Missouri was one of the few states to lose population after the last census. Fifty years from now, this could be a very different country and it's always best to think long term.

(09-22-2015 07:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 06:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

The Big 10 didn't want Missouri because they wanted Eastern expansion and the markets they would bring for the BTN. The Big 10 already had penetration into the Missouri market and compared to Maryland and New Jersey they didn't add enough eyeballs. And at the time the Big 10 thought that they would be able to crack into Virginia and North Carolina. The SEC got Texas A&M when a bigger move of Big 12 names to the ACC was stopped by the Carolina block. The SEC was poised to get Virginia Tech and N.C. State. ESPN helped the SEC land A&M and Missouri instead. A&M alone made up for not landing the North Carolina and Virginia markets which are nevertheless still out there, albeit that they look much less likely now. Missouri was good leave by the Big 10 which got what they wanted, and a nice get for the SEC because of it. But the ACC issue still has both the SEC and Big 10 looking east, only now it also has both jockeying for position should they have to go West again.

I get what you're saying and I do agree that Mizzou was more valuable to the SEC than the Big Ten. However, I do think they are still attractive to the Big Ten in the right circumstance just as FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech would be attractive to the SEC despite not adding any new markets.

If the Big Ten moves to 16, 18, or even 20 then Mizzou would have fit nicely under any circumstance. The timing wasn't right and I understand Rutgers helped get more eyeballs in NY/NJ, but I can't buy that the B1G gave a permanent, unequivocal "No" to Mizzou. I just don't see the evidence of that.

The CIC, while a nice organization that provides benefit, still only adds new members when the Big Ten first expands athletically. To me at least, that doesn't sound like an organization that makes or breaks an institution and could lead that institution to the promised land, so to speak. I can't imagine the academicians would be terribly pleased with requiring athletic affiliation in order to qualify for academic inclusion in the group unless, of course, the relative impact was minor and was far outpaced by other sorts of academic partnerships.

I think Mizzou, in part, also chose the SEC because of the demographic trends in the Sun Belt region. Missouri was one of the few states to lose population after the last census. Fifty years from now, this could be a very different country and it's always best to think long term.

At the time, and probably still, Missouri leaders wanted the B1G. It is and always has been apparent, dating back to the 80's. The Big 12 was a hot mess, still is. The only thing we knew was that we wanted out.

Now, from here it is just semi-informed speculation.

When the B1G was considering adding a 12th, they did a study. Pretty much it was the same ones that are always in the conversation. Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Notre Dame.

Anyways, at the time, there were some talks that Penn State might leap to the ACC if they didn't get an eastern partner (but definitely not Pitt). Delany has always made it apparent that he wanted the NYC area market.

Being from New Jersey, there is a good chance he had some sort of personal goal to get Rutgers in.

As for the Western front, and this is only speculation, the whispers were that Illinois and 2 others were on board and pushing for Missouri over Nebraska knowing that Nebraska was in trouble with their AAU standing, provided Notre Dame turned them down again. A few people I know have said that Delany strongarmed the conference into taking Nebraska instead of Missouri. Apparently some weren't very happy about it.

Either way, they take Nebraska, and Missouri is kind of left out in the cold. We were screwed from going back to the Big 12, because of all the public declarations that we were "shopping around".

SEC was not really on the radar until the last minute, in which we got a great deal and would have been stupid not to take. Equal revenue sharing, no junior membership, no Texas.

But there is no doubt that the B1G was our first choice....by a long ways. SEC just happened to provide us with a solid out after we ostracized ourselves from the Big 12. Delany probably assumed that we would still be there in a few years sitting in the Big 12...which turned out to be a mistake. But no one saw the SEC as an option until it happened.

Is there no GOR in the SEC?

(09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Is there no GOR in the SEC?

No, there is not.

(09-22-2015 07:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 06:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

The Big 10 didn't want Missouri because they wanted Eastern expansion and the markets they would bring for the BTN. The Big 10 already had penetration into the Missouri market and compared to Maryland and New Jersey they didn't add enough eyeballs. And at the time the Big 10 thought that they would be able to crack into Virginia and North Carolina. The SEC got Texas A&M when a bigger move of Big 12 names to the ACC was stopped by the Carolina block. The SEC was poised to get Virginia Tech and N.C. State. ESPN helped the SEC land A&M and Missouri instead. A&M alone made up for not landing the North Carolina and Virginia markets which are nevertheless still out there, albeit that they look much less likely now. Missouri was good leave by the Big 10 which got what they wanted, and a nice get for the SEC because of it. But the ACC issue still has both the SEC and Big 10 looking east, only now it also has both jockeying for position should they have to go West again.

I get what you're saying and I do agree that Mizzou was more valuable to the SEC than the Big Ten. However, I do think they are still attractive to the Big Ten in the right circumstance just as FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech would be attractive to the SEC despite not adding any new markets.

If the Big Ten moves to 16, 18, or even 20 then Mizzou would have fit nicely under any circumstance. The timing wasn't right and I understand Rutgers helped get more eyeballs in NY/NJ, but I can't buy that the B1G gave a permanent, unequivocal "No" to Mizzou. I just don't see the evidence of that.

The CIC, while a nice organization that provides benefit, still only adds new members when the Big Ten first expands athletically. To me at least, that doesn't sound like an organization that makes or breaks an institution and could lead that institution to the promised land, so to speak. I can't imagine the academicians would be terribly pleased with requiring athletic affiliation in order to qualify for academic inclusion in the group unless, of course, the relative impact was minor and was far outpaced by other sorts of academic partnerships.

I think Mizzou, in part, also chose the SEC because of the demographic trends in the Sun Belt region. Missouri was one of the few states to lose population after the last census. Fifty years from now, this could be a very different country and it's always best to think long term.

I understand your point, but have a few quibbles with reasoning on this.

1. John's Hopkins This move while athletically claimed, was nonetheless a major academic addition. In the future Federal Research Grant money will be even more sought after and more coveted because State budgets are getting thin and State grants are getting tight. There is politics involved at the national levels and the states of Virginia and North Carolina are necessary for the Big 10 to hold onto a few shifting political fortunes.

2. No ESPN held ACC property will ever be available to the SEC unless ESPN is strengthening its hand in the ACC with the right additions and they need to make room. Hence the 2010 plan of bringing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame into the ACC for 16 and giving up N.C. State and Virginia Tech to make room. ESPN told the SEC in late 2011, "we won't pay you a nickel to take F.S.U. or Clemson".

3. The reality is that ESPN holds the purse strings, especially now that we have the SECN. The SEC and ACC will be used to acquire the properties they want and those properties are for the most part the key parts of the Big 12. Who knows about Connecticut? SEC expansion into North Carolina and Virginia will only occur if room is being made for a Western Division of the ACC. Otherwise look west for our next two members.

4. I think ESPN had its original plan on target. Add a mid tier Virginia Tech program to the SEC as the Hokie basketball program does nothing for the ACC. Add N.C. State to the SEC and their basketball is enhanced with easier wins except for against Kentucky, Florida, and hopefully Missouri. Increase the cachet of the ACC football with names like N.D., Texas and Oklahoma and set up rivalries with the SEC up and down the line. Then the two networks you own will become the two top football conferences in the nation with the highest level of competition and the best cross conference rivalries.

In basketball the top brands of the SEC are enhanced by cross conference rivalries with the ACC basketball powers which would now include the birthplace of college basketball, Kansas.

It was a lights out good plan that got hosed internally by the old ACC core and their fears.

5. If we expand west because of ACC recalcitrance and do so with OU and either KU or Texas (or a second Texas school) then the ESPN plan has to change to having one consummate football conference and one consummate basketball conference rather than two more balanced rival conferences. In the Mouse's mind the former is much better than the latter, and I think their right.

6 Because of this line of reasoning F.S.U. and Clemson can never come to the SEC because that would ultimately destroy the ACC as a P5 conference as it relates to football and like it or not that is the sport that counts.

(09-22-2015 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 07:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 06:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

The Big 10 didn't want Missouri because they wanted Eastern expansion and the markets they would bring for the BTN. The Big 10 already had penetration into the Missouri market and compared to Maryland and New Jersey they didn't add enough eyeballs. And at the time the Big 10 thought that they would be able to crack into Virginia and North Carolina. The SEC got Texas A&M when a bigger move of Big 12 names to the ACC was stopped by the Carolina block. The SEC was poised to get Virginia Tech and N.C. State. ESPN helped the SEC land A&M and Missouri instead. A&M alone made up for not landing the North Carolina and Virginia markets which are nevertheless still out there, albeit that they look much less likely now. Missouri was good leave by the Big 10 which got what they wanted, and a nice get for the SEC because of it. But the ACC issue still has both the SEC and Big 10 looking east, only now it also has both jockeying for position should they have to go West again.

I get what you're saying and I do agree that Mizzou was more valuable to the SEC than the Big Ten. However, I do think they are still attractive to the Big Ten in the right circumstance just as FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech would be attractive to the SEC despite not adding any new markets.

If the Big Ten moves to 16, 18, or even 20 then Mizzou would have fit nicely under any circumstance. The timing wasn't right and I understand Rutgers helped get more eyeballs in NY/NJ, but I can't buy that the B1G gave a permanent, unequivocal "No" to Mizzou. I just don't see the evidence of that.

The CIC, while a nice organization that provides benefit, still only adds new members when the Big Ten first expands athletically. To me at least, that doesn't sound like an organization that makes or breaks an institution and could lead that institution to the promised land, so to speak. I can't imagine the academicians would be terribly pleased with requiring athletic affiliation in order to qualify for academic inclusion in the group unless, of course, the relative impact was minor and was far outpaced by other sorts of academic partnerships.

I think Mizzou, in part, also chose the SEC because of the demographic trends in the Sun Belt region. Missouri was one of the few states to lose population after the last census. Fifty years from now, this could be a very different country and it's always best to think long term.

I understand your point, but have a few quibbles with reasoning on this.

1. John's Hopkins This move while athletically claimed, was nonetheless a major academic addition. In the future Federal Research Grant money will be even more sought after and more coveted because State budgets are getting thin and State grants are getting tight. There is politics involved at the national levels and the states of Virginia and North Carolina are necessary for the Big 10 to hold onto a few shifting political fortunes.

2. No ESPN held ACC property will ever be available to the SEC unless ESPN is strengthening its hand in the ACC with the right additions and they need to make room. Hence the 2010 plan of bringing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame into the ACC for 16 and giving up N.C. State and Virginia Tech to make room. ESPN told the SEC in late 2011, "we won't pay you a nickel to take F.S.U. or Clemson".

3. The reality is that ESPN holds the purse strings, especially now that we have the SECN. The SEC and ACC will be used to acquire the properties they want and those properties are for the most part the key parts of the Big 12. Who knows about Connecticut? SEC expansion into North Carolina and Virginia will only occur if room is being made for a Western Division of the ACC. Otherwise look west for our next two members.

4. I think ESPN had its original plan on target. Add a mid tier Virginia Tech program to the SEC as the Hokie basketball program does nothing for the ACC. Add N.C. State to the SEC and their basketball is enhanced with easier wins except for against Kentucky, Florida, and hopefully Missouri. Increase the cachet of the ACC football with names like N.D., Texas and Oklahoma and set up rivalries with the SEC up and down the line. Then the two networks you own will become the two top football conferences in the nation with the highest level of competition and the best cross conference rivalries.

In basketball the top brands of the SEC are enhanced by cross conference rivalries with the ACC basketball powers which would now include the birthplace of college basketball, Kansas.

It was a lights out good plan that got hosed internally by the old ACC core and their fears.

5. If we expand west because of ACC recalcitrance and do so with OU and either KU or Texas (or a second Texas school) then the ESPN plan has to change to having one consummate football conference and one consummate basketball conference rather than two more balanced rival conferences. In the Mouse's mind the former is much better than the latter, and I think their right.

6 Because of this line of reasoning F.S.U. and Clemson can never come to the SEC because that would ultimately destroy the ACC as a P5 conference as it relates to football and like it or not that is the sport that counts.

With regard to Johns Hopkins, I think there was certainly a desire to acquire the academic might of that university, but I believe the B1G also wanted a lacrosse conference to facilitate an easier grab into VA and NC. The lacrosse league also created more content for the BTN. Maybe I'm off base, but I don't see why the CIC wouldn't be interested in every single AAU school in the country despite any athletic connection. Nonetheless, the only non-athletic member of the CIC is the University of Chicago and they were a founding member and an athletic member of the Big Ten at the time.

I completely agree with you that FSU and Clemson will never be members of the SEC as long as ESPN is interested in keeping the ACC. I was just saying that the SEC would be interested in them and have shown interest in the past.

I would personally love VT and NC State as members and see the value they bring, however, I think it unlikely that it will play out that way if the ACC survives.

Would you say UConn is a likely member of the ACC in the next round? That seems to be the best fit if ESPN wants to retain them.

(09-22-2015 05:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 07:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 06:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

The Big 10 didn't want Missouri because they wanted Eastern expansion and the markets they would bring for the BTN. The Big 10 already had penetration into the Missouri market and compared to Maryland and New Jersey they didn't add enough eyeballs. And at the time the Big 10 thought that they would be able to crack into Virginia and North Carolina. The SEC got Texas A&M when a bigger move of Big 12 names to the ACC was stopped by the Carolina block. The SEC was poised to get Virginia Tech and N.C. State. ESPN helped the SEC land A&M and Missouri instead. A&M alone made up for not landing the North Carolina and Virginia markets which are nevertheless still out there, albeit that they look much less likely now. Missouri was good leave by the Big 10 which got what they wanted, and a nice get for the SEC because of it. But the ACC issue still has both the SEC and Big 10 looking east, only now it also has both jockeying for position should they have to go West again.

I get what you're saying and I do agree that Mizzou was more valuable to the SEC than the Big Ten. However, I do think they are still attractive to the Big Ten in the right circumstance just as FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech would be attractive to the SEC despite not adding any new markets.

If the Big Ten moves to 16, 18, or even 20 then Mizzou would have fit nicely under any circumstance. The timing wasn't right and I understand Rutgers helped get more eyeballs in NY/NJ, but I can't buy that the B1G gave a permanent, unequivocal "No" to Mizzou. I just don't see the evidence of that.

The CIC, while a nice organization that provides benefit, still only adds new members when the Big Ten first expands athletically. To me at least, that doesn't sound like an organization that makes or breaks an institution and could lead that institution to the promised land, so to speak. I can't imagine the academicians would be terribly pleased with requiring athletic affiliation in order to qualify for academic inclusion in the group unless, of course, the relative impact was minor and was far outpaced by other sorts of academic partnerships.

I think Mizzou, in part, also chose the SEC because of the demographic trends in the Sun Belt region. Missouri was one of the few states to lose population after the last census. Fifty years from now, this could be a very different country and it's always best to think long term.

I understand your point, but have a few quibbles with reasoning on this.

1. John's Hopkins This move while athletically claimed, was nonetheless a major academic addition. In the future Federal Research Grant money will be even more sought after and more coveted because State budgets are getting thin and State grants are getting tight. There is politics involved at the national levels and the states of Virginia and North Carolina are necessary for the Big 10 to hold onto a few shifting political fortunes.

2. No ESPN held ACC property will ever be available to the SEC unless ESPN is strengthening its hand in the ACC with the right additions and they need to make room. Hence the 2010 plan of bringing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame into the ACC for 16 and giving up N.C. State and Virginia Tech to make room. ESPN told the SEC in late 2011, "we won't pay you a nickel to take F.S.U. or Clemson".

3. The reality is that ESPN holds the purse strings, especially now that we have the SECN. The SEC and ACC will be used to acquire the properties they want and those properties are for the most part the key parts of the Big 12. Who knows about Connecticut? SEC expansion into North Carolina and Virginia will only occur if room is being made for a Western Division of the ACC. Otherwise look west for our next two members.

4. I think ESPN had its original plan on target. Add a mid tier Virginia Tech program to the SEC as the Hokie basketball program does nothing for the ACC. Add N.C. State to the SEC and their basketball is enhanced with easier wins except for against Kentucky, Florida, and hopefully Missouri. Increase the cachet of the ACC football with names like N.D., Texas and Oklahoma and set up rivalries with the SEC up and down the line. Then the two networks you own will become the two top football conferences in the nation with the highest level of competition and the best cross conference rivalries.

In basketball the top brands of the SEC are enhanced by cross conference rivalries with the ACC basketball powers which would now include the birthplace of college basketball, Kansas.

It was a lights out good plan that got hosed internally by the old ACC core and their fears.

5. If we expand west because of ACC recalcitrance and do so with OU and either KU or Texas (or a second Texas school) then the ESPN plan has to change to having one consummate football conference and one consummate basketball conference rather than two more balanced rival conferences. In the Mouse's mind the former is much better than the latter, and I think their right.

6 Because of this line of reasoning F.S.U. and Clemson can never come to the SEC because that would ultimately destroy the ACC as a P5 conference as it relates to football and like it or not that is the sport that counts.

With regard to Johns Hopkins, I think there was certainly a desire to acquire the academic might of that university, but I believe the B1G also wanted a lacrosse conference to facilitate an easier grab into VA and NC. The lacrosse league also created more content for the BTN. Maybe I'm off base, but I don't see why the CIC wouldn't be interested in every single AAU school in the country despite any athletic connection. Nonetheless, the only non-athletic member of the CIC is the University of Chicago and they were a founding member and an athletic member of the Big Ten at the time.

I completely agree with you that FSU and Clemson will never be members of the SEC as long as ESPN is interested in keeping the ACC. I was just saying that the SEC would be interested in them and have shown interest in the past.

I would personally love VT and NC State as members and see the value they bring, however, I think it unlikely that it will play out that way if the ACC survives.

Would you say UConn is a likely member of the ACC in the next round? That seems to be the best fit if ESPN wants to retain them.

I think if the ACC can pick up a solid football program then UConn could get a look provided N.D. doesn't go all in.

(09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Is there no GOR in the SEC?

No, there is not.

But the media rights deal with ESPN is just as effective as a GOR

(09-23-2015 07:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Is there no GOR in the SEC?

No, there is not.

But the media rights deal with ESPN is just as effective as a GOR

No it isn't. If Missouri leaves the SEC, so do their media rights.

(09-23-2015 08:51 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 07:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Is there no GOR in the SEC?

No, there is not.

But the media rights deal with ESPN is just as effective as a GOR

No it isn't. If Missouri leaves the SEC, so do their media rights.

While no one can be sure since there isn't any comparative precedent, I think ESPN would consider Mizzou leaving the SEC a breach of contract.

(09-23-2015 09:45 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 08:51 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 07:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Is there no GOR in the SEC?

No, there is not.

But the media rights deal with ESPN is just as effective as a GOR

No it isn't. If Missouri leaves the SEC, so do their media rights.

While no one can be sure since there isn't any comparative precedent, I think ESPN would consider Mizzou leaving the SEC a breach of contract.

Maybe for the SEC, but not Mizzou. At which point, why would Missouri care about the SEC? Any school who would leave would be looking out for their own interests.