https://twitter.com/charlesbloomsc/statu...45376?s=21


Charles Bloom
Charles Bloom
@CharlesBloomSC
Invitation offered. Invitation accepted. 28 years ago today. #Gamecocks into the #SEC.

Was there any reservation by Arkansas or South Carolina to join the SEC? I know Texas A&M jumped immediately and Missouri initially preferred the B1G.

(09-26-2018 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Was there any reservation by Arkansas or South Carolina to join the SEC? I know Texas A&M jumped immediately and Missouri initially preferred the B1G.

I doubt Missouri ever thought they would ever receive an SEC invite at the time, so the next logical option for them would have been the Big Ten.

(09-26-2018 03:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Was there any reservation by Arkansas or South Carolina to join the SEC? I know Texas A&M jumped immediately and Missouri initially preferred the B1G.

I doubt Missouri ever thought they would ever receive an SEC invite at the time, so the next logical option for them would have been the Big Ten.

With the disappointment I heard from Missouri fans about not getting a B1G invite, there could not have been a sweeter thing to happen than an SEC invite!

(09-26-2018 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Was there any reservation by Arkansas or South Carolina to join the SEC? I know Texas A&M jumped immediately and Missouri initially preferred the B1G.

Years before, the Big Ten announced they were looking at expansion options. Missouri made public comments and statements saying they were interested in a move. Nebraska was a better choice for moving to 12 members, athletically speaking. The Big 12 has been a shotgun marriage and everyone has wondering eyes. So later on when Larry Scott was trying to put together the PAC 16, those potentially left out Big 12 schools needed fallback options. So it wasn’t really hard for the brain trust at Missouri to consider moving to the SEC when Texas A&M jumped ship since in recent years that same group was pondering how to survive in a rebuilt Big East if the PAC-16 left them without a Big 12 to call home

(09-26-2018 06:45 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 03:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Was there any reservation by Arkansas or South Carolina to join the SEC? I know Texas A&M jumped immediately and Missouri initially preferred the B1G.

I doubt Missouri ever thought they would ever receive an SEC invite at the time, so the next logical option for them would have been the Big Ten.

With the disappointment I heard from Missouri fans about not getting a B1G invite, there could not have been a sweeter thing to happen than an SEC invite!

Medic is correct in implying that Mizzou had talked with the SEC prior to that expansion period. They knew the SEC had been talking to T A&M and Texas for years. Once A&M was secured, but UT wasn't an option, the SEC explored OU alone which didn't materialize. So, getting an SEC invitation was a quick development and sort of a surprise looking at months earlier. However, they had talked with the SEC long before then as several schools had (just in case stuff). That noted, Mizzou campaigned hard for a Big 10 offer once that conference announced plans to expand; and getting dissed, they turned their efforts to the SEC when it became later known the SEC was set to add themselves.

(09-26-2018 08:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 06:45 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 03:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Was there any reservation by Arkansas or South Carolina to join the SEC? I know Texas A&M jumped immediately and Missouri initially preferred the B1G.

I doubt Missouri ever thought they would ever receive an SEC invite at the time, so the next logical option for them would have been the Big Ten.

With the disappointment I heard from Missouri fans about not getting a B1G invite, there could not have been a sweeter thing to happen than an SEC invite!

Medic is correct in implying that Mizzou had talked with the SEC prior to that expansion period. They knew the SEC had been talking to T A&M and Texas for years. Once A&M was secured, but UT wasn't an option, the SEC explored OU alone which didn't materialize. So, getting an SEC invitation was a quick development and sort of a surprise looking at months earlier. However, they had talked with the SEC long before then as several schools had (just in case stuff). That noted, Mizzou campaigned hard for a Big 10 offer once that conference announced plans to expand; and getting dissed, they turned their efforts to the SEC when it became later known the SEC was set to add themselves.

Boren insisted on State as well, so Missouri was it.

(09-26-2018 09:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 06:45 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 03:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Was there any reservation by Arkansas or South Carolina to join the SEC? I know Texas A&M jumped immediately and Missouri initially preferred the B1G.

I doubt Missouri ever thought they would ever receive an SEC invite at the time, so the next logical option for them would have been the Big Ten.

With the disappointment I heard from Missouri fans about not getting a B1G invite, there could not have been a sweeter thing to happen than an SEC invite!

Medic is correct in implying that Mizzou had talked with the SEC prior to that expansion period. They knew the SEC had been talking to T A&M and Texas for years. Once A&M was secured, but UT wasn't an option, the SEC explored OU alone which didn't materialize. So, getting an SEC invitation was a quick development and sort of a surprise looking at months earlier. However, they had talked with the SEC long before then as several schools had (just in case stuff). That noted, Mizzou campaigned hard for a Big 10 offer once that conference announced plans to expand; and getting dissed, they turned their efforts to the SEC when it became later known the SEC was set to add themselves.

Boren insisted on State as well, so Missouri was it.

Don’t forget about Tejas...

Quote:Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in a slimmed-down Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option."There was a time when A&M thought they were going to the SEC and they very much wanted us to go with them," Boren said. "Oklahoma, in the whole thing, we were positioned in a way where virtually we could not have lost."Last Friday, Oklahoma State president Burns Hargis confirmed that his school "never had an offer" from the SEC, "so it was never anything to consider." Both he and Boren expressed a strong interest in sticking together through any future conference realignment."Had the Pac-10 thing fallen apart, had the Big 12 minus two not been put back together, we would have probably ended up having much more serious conversations with the SEC, and (asked) would they take OSU and Texas, for example," Boren said. "It never got to that.”

https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/st...d1272.html


Also of note, looks like OU and A&M were interested in “sticking together throughout any future conference realignment.” Gotta think of the SEC’s first offer isn’t OU/UT, then OU/OSU it probably will be to secure the Sooners.

(09-26-2018 10:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 09:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 06:45 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 03:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I doubt Missouri ever thought they would ever receive an SEC invite at the time, so the next logical option for them would have been the Big Ten.

With the disappointment I heard from Missouri fans about not getting a B1G invite, there could not have been a sweeter thing to happen than an SEC invite!

Medic is correct in implying that Mizzou had talked with the SEC prior to that expansion period. They knew the SEC had been talking to T A&M and Texas for years. Once A&M was secured, but UT wasn't an option, the SEC explored OU alone which didn't materialize. So, getting an SEC invitation was a quick development and sort of a surprise looking at months earlier. However, they had talked with the SEC long before then as several schools had (just in case stuff). That noted, Mizzou campaigned hard for a Big 10 offer once that conference announced plans to expand; and getting dissed, they turned their efforts to the SEC when it became later known the SEC was set to add themselves.

Boren insisted on State as well, so Missouri was it.

Don’t forget about Tejas...

Quote:Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in a slimmed-down Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option."There was a time when A&M thought they were going to the SEC and they very much wanted us to go with them," Boren said. "Oklahoma, in the whole thing, we were positioned in a way where virtually we could not have lost."Last Friday, Oklahoma State president Burns Hargis confirmed that his school "never had an offer" from the SEC, "so it was never anything to consider." Both he and Boren expressed a strong interest in sticking together through any future conference realignment."Had the Pac-10 thing fallen apart, had the Big 12 minus two not been put back together, we would have probably ended up having much more serious conversations with the SEC, and (asked) would they take OSU and Texas, for example," Boren said. "It never got to that.”

https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/st...d1272.html


Also of note, looks like OU and A&M were interested in “sticking together throughout any future conference realignment.” Gotta think of the SEC’s first offer isn’t OU/UT, then OU/OSU it probably will be to secure the Sooners.

Or, maybe that's where Kansas fits in. Move to 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas.

I still think autonomy could lead to either 3 divisions or divisionless structures.

(09-26-2018 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 10:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 09:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 06:45 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  With the disappointment I heard from Missouri fans about not getting a B1G invite, there could not have been a sweeter thing to happen than an SEC invite!

Medic is correct in implying that Mizzou had talked with the SEC prior to that expansion period. They knew the SEC had been talking to T A&M and Texas for years. Once A&M was secured, but UT wasn't an option, the SEC explored OU alone which didn't materialize. So, getting an SEC invitation was a quick development and sort of a surprise looking at months earlier. However, they had talked with the SEC long before then as several schools had (just in case stuff). That noted, Mizzou campaigned hard for a Big 10 offer once that conference announced plans to expand; and getting dissed, they turned their efforts to the SEC when it became later known the SEC was set to add themselves.

Boren insisted on State as well, so Missouri was it.

Don’t forget about Tejas...

Quote:Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in a slimmed-down Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option."There was a time when A&M thought they were going to the SEC and they very much wanted us to go with them," Boren said. "Oklahoma, in the whole thing, we were positioned in a way where virtually we could not have lost."Last Friday, Oklahoma State president Burns Hargis confirmed that his school "never had an offer" from the SEC, "so it was never anything to consider." Both he and Boren expressed a strong interest in sticking together through any future conference realignment."Had the Pac-10 thing fallen apart, had the Big 12 minus two not been put back together, we would have probably ended up having much more serious conversations with the SEC, and (asked) would they take OSU and Texas, for example," Boren said. "It never got to that.”

https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/st...d1272.html


Also of note, looks like OU and A&M were interested in “sticking together throughout any future conference realignment.” Gotta think of the SEC’s first offer isn’t OU/UT, then OU/OSU it probably will be to secure the Sooners.

Or, maybe that's where Kansas fits in. Move to 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas.

I still think autonomy could lead to either 3 divisions or divisionless structures.

Gotta agree that divisionless structures will have to come if conferences expand to that many members. Only way to reasonably play everyone in the conference over the years. Playing a number of yearly rivals along with a handful of rotating SEC members would keep things fresh and exciting.

At 18:
3 permanent rivals + rotating 7 every 2 years for 10 conference games
5 permanent rivals + rotating 3 every 4 years for 8 conference games
5 permanent rivals + rotating 4 every 3 years for 9 conference games

I think the 2nd option would be the most appealing as it allows schools to maintain a good amount of rivals.