(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.