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

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

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

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

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

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

From an Athletics-only standpoint, yes somewhat shocking. Not to the hyperbolic levels you're describing but somewhat shocking. As an overall institutional fit however, extremely logical.

(09-24-2017 12:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 12:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 12:05 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 01:57 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It's not the conference they joined that is to blame. Nebraska was struggling in the Big XII, so were Texas A&M and Colorado; Missouri was okay but they never won the conference, even Kansas can make that claim. Nebraska and A&M used Texas as an excuse of their mediocrity but who can they blame now?

Nebraska needs the right coach, that's it. They have the conference, exposure, resources, history and fan base to make it happen.

You are correct. That Big XII championship game when Texas was given two attempts to hit a field goal to win the game the year Nebraska left supports your argument well.

way to "misremember" history

Texas was not given 2 chances at a field goal 1 second was put on the clock because the replay ruled the ball had hit out of bounds with 1 second on the play clock on the throw away pass on the prior play

and the chancellor of NU has made it 100% clear that NU did not leave the Big 12 because of anything having to do with Texas

NU was 100% in favor of unequal revenue sharing

NU was not in favor of a conference network unless the revenue was shared unequally and when that was not an option NU was head of Texas in getting their own network started

NU had no issue with the conference offices in dallas and the chancellor of NU voted in favor of the conference CCG in dallas because he did not like sitting in the stands in the cold

the only major decision that NU and Texas had a difference of opinion on was partial qualifiers and that was 11-1 in favor of doing away with them so that was not because of Texas

the chancellor NU has also made clear that when he pressed Texas to commit to the Big 12 Texas said they would if NU did and NU declined to do so

That's why I don't feel bad for A&M and Nebraska. They were part of the problem in the Big XII being dysfunctional. They had no issues and regrets in getting more money than Texas Tech, Iowa State and the rest. It's easy to blame Texas (they're not angels either) and to some extent Oklahoma but those two blamed Bevo for their shortcomings and left when they had a chance (I don't blame them, it's the B1G and SEC) but who can they blame now? They have more money, more exposure, and play in a better conference. What's the excuse? It can't be Texas being a bully and dictating terms anymore. Colorado was a school I thought (of all the defectors) that deserved to go to a better conference and I was indifferent to Missouri. TCU has done more in the Big XII in six seasons than A&M in 16 seasons. West Virginia was a better football and basketball replacement than Missouri.

I was just saying on another forum you never hear from anyone at CU about the Big 12 and you never hear from anyone that is a fan of a Big 12 team about CU

because it was well known that CU wanted in the PAC 10 before the Big 12 existed

and when the chance came CU said "bye" and left and they did not blame Texas or "greed" or unequal revenues or no conference network like A&M and NU

which is all the worse considering that NU was never in favor of a conference network unless it shared unequally and A&M threatened to sue the Big 12 for unequal revenue before they left

then they both blamed Texas for those "issues" while they were both as responsible for them as anyone

even MU was going to stay in the Big 12 until the boren "wallflower' tour and MU decided that they were not going to get in the Big 10 and if the Big 12 folded they were going to be in trouble so they better take the SEC SEC SEC offer

NU and A&M left and acted like it was the greatest thing ever for them and laughed all the way out of the door and yet they still cry about Texas and the "issues Texas caused" while they were 2X responsible for them

hell A&M still talks about "Texas killing the SWC"

as if A&M was going to stay in the SWC and as if they had not been talking to the SEC SEC SEC even back then

for some reason A&M and NU think that they have the right to decide their own fate, but Texas owes it to put their best interest aside in favor of what is best for others even while programs like NU and A&M would never do that and while NU and A&M will not even tack responsibility for the decisions they made while in any conference

as long as it is not Texas they will gladly take a back seat in any other conference to anyone else and they will be thrilled with that

I will put the whole C-USA as a cluster mess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah all of those bowl games and being a large state school with good academics and all that TV money they brought in really was shocking!

Would Missouri be more comfortable in the Big Ten? I could see them fitting in well with the a Big Ten West schools with or without Kansas/Oklahoma in the mix.

The B12 was and still is a loveless marriage of convenience that never solved the demographic problem that led to its creation, is overly dependent on one market for its value and is full of teams looking for a way out and would bolt in an instant if one of the other P5s came calling.

Everybody who got out was just ahead of the curve before the rest of them do likewise under much less favorable circumstances

(09-25-2017 01:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah all of those bowl games and being a large state school with good academics and all that TV money they brought in really was shocking!

All 10?

Subscriber fees are what killed the Big 12. The Big 12 simply did not have the population within their footprint to pick up the total carriage fees that the Big Ten and SEC could with their footprints with their own network had they lanced one. The big boys of the Big 12 would have never been able to stomach making less than their SEC and Big Ten peers.

(09-25-2017 08:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Subscriber fees are what killed the Big 12. The Big 12 simply did not have the population within their footprint to pick up the total carriage fees that the Big Ten and SEC could with their footprints with their own network had they lanced one. The big boys of the Big 12 would have never been able to stomach making less than their SEC and Big Ten peers.

No. The only state that had enough people in it to make carriage fees possibly work was Texas. And the LHN killed any opportunity for anyone else to profit off of that state, including it's less prestigious state and private schools.

Because ESPN created the LHN they guaranteed that nobody else would ever have a network that could really pay, let alone a conference one. The creation of the LHN was, is, and will be the death of the Big 12.

(09-25-2017 01:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah all of those bowl games and being a large state school with good academics and all that TV money they brought in really was shocking!

Rutgers is a good academic school, flaship, AAU. But lets not get carried away and pretend like Rutgers to the Big 10 was an obvious move. And the part about "all those bowl games and all that tv money"--what?
I'm a college sports fanatic and I remember Rutgers being one of the very worst division 1 football and basketball schools in Division 1 in the 80's and 90's. New Mexico St has more NCAA tournaments in basketball than Rutgers and had probably a similar winning percentage in football during that period. Rutgers finally started winning in football about 10 years ago...the greatest 10 years in forever. Without looking I'm guessing 2 bowl wins? 3? I'll go back and look.

P.S. I looked it up and Rutgers has 6 bowl wins. You've had a solid decade in football.
Since I compared Rutgers to NMSU in basketball:
Rutgers NCAA Tournaments: 6 including final four in 1976; 1 since then.
New Mexico St NCAA Tournaments; 23, including final 4 in 1970; 16 since then.

As a Cincinnati fan, the 2009 Big 12 Championship Game talk in this thread has triggered me.

(09-25-2017 06:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The B12 was and still is a loveless marriage of convenience that never solved the demographic problem that led to its creation, is overly dependent on one market for its value and is full of teams looking for a way out and would bolt in an instant if one of the other P5s came calling.

Everybody who got out was just ahead of the curve before the rest of them do likewise under much less favorable circumstances

Not entirely so. The Texas schools that make up a large chunk of the Big 12 have stronger bonds than just convenience. Plus, you've just described football-expanded ACC (outside the Carolina-VA core) as well.

Both the Big 12 and ACC are to a significant extent hodge-podge arrangements, what ties them together is membership in the Big Boy club and a GOR that emanates from that.

Only the SEC, B1G, and PAC are largely characterized by inherent cultural unity. That's what separates them as the strongest conferences.

(09-26-2017 07:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 06:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The B12 was and still is a loveless marriage of convenience that never solved the demographic problem that led to its creation, is overly dependent on one market for its value and is full of teams looking for a way out and would bolt in an instant if one of the other P5s came calling.

Everybody who got out was just ahead of the curve before the rest of them do likewise under much less favorable circumstances

Not entirely so. The Texas schools that make up a large chunk of the Big 12 have stronger bonds than just convenience. Plus, you've just described football-expanded ACC (outside the Carolina-VA core) as well.

Both the Big 12 and ACC are to a significant extent hodge-podge arrangements, what ties them together is membership in the Big Boy club and a GOR that emanates from that.

Only the SEC, B1G, and PAC are largely characterized by inherent cultural unity. That's what separates them as the strongest conferences.

I would argue that The ACC has a basketball addiction that ties it together. I know Syracuse, Louisville and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh and Notre Dame all value the "basketball culture" of The ACC.

As hard as The ACC has worked to overcome its basketball image it's still the thread that ties the conference together.

(09-26-2017 07:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Both the Big 12 and ACC are to a significant extent hodge-podge arrangements, what ties them together is membership in the Big Boy club and a GOR that emanates from that.

Only the SEC, B1G, and PAC are largely characterized by inherent cultural unity. That's what separates them as the strongest conferences.

Agreed. The XII is similar to the old Big East football conference. A few schools (some would be non-power schools) in a small area of the country with one crazy outlier. The XII is, most likely, on its way out. The ACC has a core that has been together since almost forever (NC4, Virginia, Clemson.) Virginia Tech enjoys being with Virginia and the other old Big East schools (Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College) are glad to be with brethren. Georgia Tech and Florida St left independence and chose the ACC. Louisville is just happy. Notre Dame is currently pleased. However, it still is a mix of ACC-core, old Big East, and former independents/nomads.

The PAC, B1G, and SEC are cultural united for the most part. They each have outliers or awkward pieces but it works.

(09-26-2017 07:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 06:50 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The B12 was and still is a loveless marriage of convenience that never solved the demographic problem that led to its creation, is overly dependent on one market for its value and is full of teams looking for a way out and would bolt in an instant if one of the other P5s came calling.

Everybody who got out was just ahead of the curve before the rest of them do likewise under much less favorable circumstances

Not entirely so. The Texas schools that make up a large chunk of the Big 12 have stronger bonds than just convenience. Plus, you've just described football-expanded ACC (outside the Carolina-VA core) as well.

Both the Big 12 and ACC are to a significant extent hodge-podge arrangements, what ties them together is membership in the Big Boy club and a GOR that emanates from that.

Only the SEC, B1G, and PAC are largely characterized by inherent cultural unity. That's what separates them as the strongest conferences.

I agree except:
SEC-Missouri
BIG-Nebraska

Nebraska doesn't fit anywhere. Can you really call the XII a Big 8 successor rather than a SWC successor? They'd still be in a bad place rivalry-wise with Colorado and Missouri gone. Sure, they have no rivals in the B1G, but at this point, the only way they could maintain all of their old rivalries is to go independent and schedule like Notre Dame does.

Nebraska's problems are separate from the B1G.

(09-26-2017 09:36 AM)Mav Wrote:  Nebraska doesn't fit anywhere. Can you really call the XII a Big 8 successor rather than a SWC successor? They'd still be in a bad place rivalry-wise with Colorado and Missouri gone. Sure, they have no rivals in the B1G, but at this point, the only way they could maintain all of their old rivalries is to go independent and schedule like Notre Dame does.

Nebraska's problems are separate from the B1G.

This...

I've said this for a very long time.

Nebraska's biggest problem is that it's out of its natural habitat.

Mizzou has much the same problem and if Oklahoma is not careful it will end up much the same.

(09-26-2017 09:36 AM)Mav Wrote:  Nebraska doesn't fit anywhere. Can you really call the XII a Big 8 successor rather than a SWC successor? They'd still be in a bad place rivalry-wise with Colorado and Missouri gone. Sure, they have no rivals in the B1G, but at this point, the only way they could maintain all of their old rivalries is to go independent and schedule like Notre Dame does.

Nebraska's problems are separate from the B1G.

I've often thought as of late, that should the PACN be aligned with ESPN they could gain carriage and then expand to 20 out of the Big 12 to increase their inventory of games in the CTZ. They could do this with only 6 current Big 12 schools heading to the PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State would be the six. Nebraska and Missouri might both be better off if they joined those to take the PAC to 20.

It's the only way I see Nebraska regaining any steam at all and it would be a fresh start again for Missouri with less pressure on them and both would have the games back that their fans really care about seeing.

Then the SEC and Big 10 would have 7 slots each to 20 and with a underpaid 14 and a half member ACC occupying better markets to the East and being more of a fit in most regards for both them. The Big 10 and SEC could form very nice 20 member conferences that way. They would be more geographically centered and more importantly most rivalries would be restored with such a move and the proper alignment of 4 divisions each.

I believe the biggest obstacle that Missouri faces in the SEC is the fact that other than A&M they had virtually no history with the rest of the SEC members with most schools having played Missouri less than 5 times in their programs history and many of those only having played them 1, 2 or 3 times. Perhaps not so oddly the SEC school that Missouri had played the most was Vanderbilt and I think that was around 9 or 10 times at the time they entered the conference. I believe it is their biggest obstacle because their fan base simply doesn't get worked up over our schools and they truly miss Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas and Oklahoma.

(09-26-2017 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 09:36 AM)Mav Wrote:  Nebraska doesn't fit anywhere. Can you really call the XII a Big 8 successor rather than a SWC successor? They'd still be in a bad place rivalry-wise with Colorado and Missouri gone. Sure, they have no rivals in the B1G, but at this point, the only way they could maintain all of their old rivalries is to go independent and schedule like Notre Dame does.

Nebraska's problems are separate from the B1G.

I've often thought as of late, that should the PACN be aligned with ESPN they could gain carriage and then expand to 20 out of the Big 12 to increase their inventory of games in the CTZ. They could do this with only 6 current Big 12 schools heading to the PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State would be the six. Nebraska and Missouri might both be better off if they joined those to take the PAC to 20.

It's the only way I see Nebraska regaining any steam at all and it would be a fresh start again for Missouri with less pressure on them and both would have the games back that their fans really care about seeing.

Then the SEC and Big 10 would have 7 slots each to 20 and with a underpaid 14 and a half member ACC occupying better markets to the East and being more of a fit in most regards for both them. The Big 10 and SEC could form very nice 20 member conferences that way. They would be more geographically centered and more importantly most rivalries would be restored with such a move and the proper alignment of 4 divisions each.

I believe the biggest obstacle that Missouri faces in the SEC is the fact that other than A&M they had virtually no history with the rest of the SEC members with most schools having played Missouri less than 5 times in their programs history and many of those only having played them 1, 2 or 3 times. Perhaps not so oddly the SEC school that Missouri had played the most was Vanderbilt and I think that was around 9 or 10 times at the time they entered the conference. I believe it is their biggest obstacle because their fan base simply doesn't get worked up over our schools and they truly miss Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas and Oklahoma.

We've learned the hard way that history is a huge part of college sports. It means something when you play a school 100 times in football, even if you don't consider them a main rival. Familiarity breeds contempt. History isn't everything, but it's pretty close.

Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska started the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association (Big 6) in 1907 (along with Iowa and Washington of St. Louis). Iowa State joined in 1908, Kansas State joined in 1913, and Oklahoma joined in 1919.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Eight_Conference

The Big 6 morphed into the Big 7 and Big 8, before joining forces with the Texas schools to form the Big 12. That's a lot of history to leave behind. Even A&M had a history with Arkansas and LSU when they went to the SEC. Nebraska and Missouri went to uncharted territory.

Having grown up with the old Big 8, I believe that KU, K-State, NU, Iowa State, and Mizzou belong together. Those schools are within driving distance of each other, and their alumni and fans interact daily. It's a crime that Nebraska played a conference game last week against Rutgers, and that Missouri played one against Auburn. Nothing against Rutgers or Auburn, but Nebraska and Missouri are fish out of water in the B1G and SEC as currently constituted. I don't expect the Big 8 gang to get back together again. But, as JR has alluded to, Nebraska and Missouri need some familiar rivals.

Based on what they knew at the time and the instability of the Big 12, I don't blame Nebraska and Missouri for leaving. The money and long-term future of the B1G and SEC are secure. But, I also believe their on-the-field results would be the same in the Big 12 as they are in their current conferences. Both schools' situations are not the result of their conference moves.

I think Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma could fit in well if they joined Nebraska in the Big Ten. It reunites some rivalries and I think there are some Big Ten schools like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota that they could click with. I like the idea of bringing back the neutral site game between Illinois and Missouri in St Louis.

With Missouri out of the SEC, Oklahoma St, Texas, and Texas Tech can join a 16 team SEC.