Mizzoura isn’t as much of an outsider as they’re painted to be. Especially now with Oklahoma on the menu.

Missouri fits the B1G, and always wanted to be in the B1G, but is happy with the SEC. They're not going anywhere.

I don’t think ESPN would give up KC market. Mizzou when good… without an NFL team in St. Louis, is a brand. They were a CCG away from a BCS Championship game during the Chase Daniels run. E$PN will pay enough to keep them from flirting.

KU will have to find another partner. Ultimately it has to be a BBall inclined move. That’s why I think the Big 12 still makes the most sense for KU sans a B1G invite. Add some BBall schools and remain the blue blood BBall school of the Midwest.

(08-26-2021 05:24 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don’t think ESPN would give up KC market. Mizzou when good… without an NFL team in St. Louis, is a brand. They were a CCG away from a BCS Championship game during the Chase Daniels run. E$PN will pay enough to keep them from flirting.

KU will have to find another partner. Ultimately it has to be a BBall inclined move. That’s why I think the Big 12 still makes the most sense for KU sans a B1G invite. Add some BBall schools and remain the blue blood BBall school of the Midwest.

Since it's the same calculation everyone is doing, Kansas just needs to keep the basketball program at the top level and when the big schools turn their attention from squeezing as much as they can from the CFP toward setting up a national championship tournament that doesn't pay a 70% income tax to the NCAA, and the value of basketball to a conference basically doubles, Kansas will be there ready to be entertain the offers that come in.

If they can get their FB somewhere toward the top of MAC, or even better top of the Sunbelt, level, that would be a step in the right direction.

Maybe they should hire a Wing T coach from a lower division as OC to bring in a Wing-T / Flexbone package! There surely is still some ability to handle flexbone / wing-t blocking lurking somewhere in Great Plains linemen DNA! And the usual year or two lost to learning a radically new system would be seen from the Kansas FB stands as not much different from the last decade.

(08-25-2021 10:03 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-25-2021 05:11 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  I don't think anyone has brought this up recently so I will.

Missouri seems like the best partner to go to the B1G with Kansas. I just can't see why the B1G would double up on Iowa with ISU.

Would Missouri be able to leave the SEC? Would Missouri fans care if they were in the B1G playing teams like Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois? It certainly feels like a better fit (as many have pointed out before).

And what about the SEC? Would they care if Missouri was gone? It would open up the door for Texas Tech, OSU, or WVU. I think all have better programs than Missouri and all seem to fit better.

I guess it is a TV market but Missouri just seems like such an outlier.

On the other hand, I could see the SEC doing this just to get the ball rolling on B12 dissolution. If the B1G takes Kansas and Missouri and the SEC takes OSU, that gets us to six and puts pressure on the ACC and PAC to pick over the rest.

wrong!!! Check out the P5 board or, click the link:

https://www.csnbbs.com/thread-927390.html

Ha, the darn P5 board. Thanks for pointing it out!

Somewhat similar but I'm suggesting that the SEC actually approach the B1G and facilitate the "poaching".

Honestly, I think it's a win-win-win. The SEC can pick up a stronger football school, the B1G gets a logical state that fills in their territory nicely, and Missouri is paired up with more of their rivals and makes more money.

(08-25-2021 05:27 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I don’t think the SEC would mind at all - good shot at upgrading. But there’s not much incentive for Mizzou to burn a bridge with the SEC - academics, IL exporting more students than the whole SEC footprint, and no exit fee notwithstanding.

Also, as much as people want to talk about declining cable households, it's still critically important for the next decade-plus. Cable (whether national or regional) is still going to be paying the vast majority of the bills for every sports league (college or pro) besides the NFL. The only reason why we're talking about conference realignment and college football playoff expansion in the first place is because of TV money... and the vast majority of that is still coming from cable for the foreseeable future.

Even in the SEC additions of UT and OU, one of the first articles on the expansion had quotes from SEC officials talking about how they would be adding revenue to the SEC Network. Those conference networks still matter a LOT to the SEC and Big Ten in particular and that's where a school like Missouri is valuable since they bring in multiple large markets (St. Louis and Kansas City) and good-sized population state.

Missouri is doing its job for the SEC and Maryland and Rutgers are doing their jobs for the Big Ten: bringing in very high in-market cable revenue for their respective conference networks. In contrast, adding schools like Texas Tech and Oklahoma State do absolutely nothing for the SEC revenue-wise: the SEC just took the two schools that deliver those markets alone that are *also* national brands (UT and OU) on top of having the other most relevant school in the Texas market (Texas A&M).

Every time that I see a sarcastic comment asking, "How did adding Rutgers getting the NYC market work out for the Big Ten? Hahaha...", I can tell that person has absolutely no freaking clue what they're talking about. Rutgers DID deliver the NYC market to get high in-market cable rates for the Big Ten Network and Maryland DID do the same for the DC market. From a pure financial perspective, the only addition that would have added more revenue for the Big Ten compared to that Rutgers/Maryland move was adding Texas. Of course, we have to note that it was a synergy play: it was the combination of Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State fans in those markets laid on top of the Rutgers/Maryland fans that really made this possible as opposed to Rutgers/Maryland alone. (In contrast, UT can deliver the entire state of Texas alone, so they do have a completely different kind of power.)

Anyway, getting back to the OP comment, Mizzou going to the Big Ten with Kansas has actually been talked about as a blue sky possibility a bit here. It's just not realistic. No one is leaving either the SEC or Big Ten at this point.

I view the B1G's misstep with Missouri in 2010 (along with Kansas) as one of the biggest blunders during that realignment cycle (right up there with the Big 12's misstep of not inviting West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati). Had the B1G swooped in and grabbed Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri (getting to 14), Rutgers and Maryland would still be there as #15 and #16. Long-term, there definitely would have been a pathway to connect with Oklahoma and Texas as well (probably easier today than without that group).

Alas, Missouri should have zero thought about leaving the SEC right now. Missouri is one of a select grouping of universities that can easily fit in both the B1G and SEC. It is AAU, has a solid overall athletic department, and draws from the northern states as well as the southern states. It having Kansas City (a top-30 media market) is a cherry on top. Missouri might not be competing for SEC Championships annually, but their revenues and payouts (which will only go up) prove that they made a wise investment for the school for many years to come. Even if Kansas and the B1G came together and reached out to Missouri, I don't think Missouri would reciprocate that interest at all.

(08-26-2021 08:22 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I view the B1G's misstep with Missouri in 2010 (along with Kansas) as one of the biggest blunders during that realignment cycle (right up there with the Big 12's misstep of not inviting West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati). Had the B1G swooped in and grabbed Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri (getting to 14), Rutgers and Maryland would still be there as #15 and #16. Long-term, there definitely would have been a pathway to connect with Oklahoma and Texas as well (probably easier today than without that group).

Alas, Missouri should have zero thought about leaving the SEC right now. Missouri is one of a select grouping of universities that can easily fit in both the B1G and SEC. It is AAU, has a solid overall athletic department, and draws from the northern states as well as the southern states. It having Kansas City (a top-30 media market) is a cherry on top. Missouri might not be competing for SEC Championships annually, but their revenues and payouts (which will only go up) prove that they made a wise investment for the school for many years to come. Even if Kansas and the B1G came together and reached out to Missouri, I don't think Missouri would reciprocate that interest at all.

Rutgers might have been there, but I think people are underestimating the value of Maryland and how difficult it was/is to poach an ACC school compared to a Big 12 school. Maryland and Mizzou are essentially on the same tier of athletic history (with Maryland arguably being a bit better based on basketball), but Maryland is in a MUCH more important market for the Big Ten. We can debate all day about the on-the-field/on-the-court results, but financially, it's no contest. The Big Ten Network DID add those households in NYC and DC which has a financial impact that can only be matched by adding the State of Texas. It was a MASSIVE financial success and why the Big Ten has still been paying out more conference money compared to the SEC for such a long time despite the SEC's football prowess.

That being said, I agree that Mizzou shouldn't be going anywhere. No one should be leaving either the SEC or Big Ten in this landscape (even for each other).

(08-26-2021 08:22 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Had the B1G swooped in and grabbed Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri (getting to 14), Rutgers and Maryland would still be there as #15 and #16. Long-term, there definitely would have been a pathway to connect with Oklahoma and Texas as well (probably easier today than without that group).

Good post and agree that taking all 3 Big XII members to reach 16 was the better long-term play. Not sure whether Delany did or didn't have that option back in 2016.

We'll disagree about Mizzou's potential receptiveness (or lack thereof to the B1G), but time will tell. If the two conferences — and thus their member schools — are making more or less the same dollars when the B1G's upcoming media rights deal is set to kick in, then all bets are off.

I think the big 10 should offer Missouri and Missouri should accept assuming they get a full offer and not the Nebraska deal + Kansas is team 16. Why should Missouri accept

1) big 10 pays more than SEC
2) big 10 has CIC
3) join a league with biggest rival, KU and Illinois
4) Missouri gets a lot of students from Illinois
5) better chance to win in football

I think the reason the big 10 passed on Missouri in 2010 was they were on a crazy quest to get UNC into the big 10 thanks to their commish

Where the B1G currently pays more than the SEC when the SEC signs their new contract they are going to get PAID. Either way Missouri has been a good addition to the SEC. They won the SEC East 2 straight years and add really good depth in the mid-tier portion of the conference. They seem to be settling in their rivalry with Arkansas and plus they now will have 3 former Big XII teams instead of 1 with A&M. If they really wanted to play Kansas, they would.

The two ultimate prizes in the Jim Delany/B1G expansion quest were (and are) Notre Dame and North Carolina.

Rutgers and Maryland — in addition to their large media markets — were a bridge of sorts to those two iconic brands and storied institutions.

Got the B1G into the Northeast (where ND has a sizable following) and into the DMV (a familiar 4.5-hour drive from Chapel Hill).

Delany was savvy enough to know that sometimes you gotta reel in the smaller fish first to set the hook for the big trophy later.

I don’t think Missouri can go wrong in either the big 10 or sec. I think they would be better off in a 16 team big 10 with Kansas but moving is also a pain. The president of Missouri has big 10 ties so I wouldn’t be shocked if they left. Delany or his bosses were fools to think they could land ND and UNC +UVA but that was his plan and because of that Missouri is in the sec

(08-25-2021 08:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It seems like Kansas and Kansas State would lock down Manhattan.

(08-26-2021 08:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-26-2021 08:22 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I view the B1G's misstep with Missouri in 2010 (along with Kansas) as one of the biggest blunders during that realignment cycle (right up there with the Big 12's misstep of not inviting West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati). Had the B1G swooped in and grabbed Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri (getting to 14), Rutgers and Maryland would still be there as #15 and #16. Long-term, there definitely would have been a pathway to connect with Oklahoma and Texas as well (probably easier today than without that group).

Alas, Missouri should have zero thought about leaving the SEC right now. Missouri is one of a select grouping of universities that can easily fit in both the B1G and SEC. It is AAU, has a solid overall athletic department, and draws from the northern states as well as the southern states. It having Kansas City (a top-30 media market) is a cherry on top. Missouri might not be competing for SEC Championships annually, but their revenues and payouts (which will only go up) prove that they made a wise investment for the school for many years to come. Even if Kansas and the B1G came together and reached out to Missouri, I don't think Missouri would reciprocate that interest at all.

Rutgers might have been there, but I think people are underestimating the value of Maryland and how difficult it was/is to poach an ACC school compared to a Big 12 school. Maryland and Mizzou are essentially on the same tier of athletic history (with Maryland arguably being a bit better based on basketball), but Maryland is in a MUCH more important market for the Big Ten. We can debate all day about the on-the-field/on-the-court results, but financially, it's no contest. The Big Ten Network DID add those households in NYC and DC which has a financial impact that can only be matched by adding the State of Texas. It was a MASSIVE financial success and why the Big Ten has still been paying out more conference money compared to the SEC for such a long time despite the SEC's football prowess.

That being said, I agree that Mizzou shouldn't be going anywhere. No one should be leaving either the SEC or Big Ten in this landscape (even for each other).

If memory serves, I seem to recall Maryland was in bad financial position when they were invited to the B1G. This was a big catalyst in Maryland's BOTs approving the move to the B1G, because it would cushion the shortfall that they were experiencing. If true, and I could be wrong, but their financial position would not have changed radically between 2011 and 2015 to prevent them from turning down interest from the B1G. As you said, Rutgers was always going to be there, so that is a moot point.

I do not think that adding Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas as a group (getting to 14) would have prevented the B1G from getting Rutgers and Maryland. It really wasn't an either/or scenario in my mind. Again, I could be wrong.

How 'bout no. On both.

Missouri hasn't been a great fit for the SEC. If all was well with College Athletics though, KU and Mizzou to the B1G makes perfect sense for all involved. The same could be said for OSU and the SEC. The main issue is that the Missouri alums / meth baked t shirt fans have covered themselves in the SEC blanket and made it their identity. The admin are perfectly content being the next Arkansas. It's going to be rough to roll that back.