(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.