Realignment Podcast with Black Heart Gold Pants

Posted: September 29, 2011 in Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports

As actual conference realignment news has taken a breather over the past week (although the speculation runs rampant everywhere), I sat down with Adam Jacobi and Patrick Vint of Black Heart Gold Pants last night for a podcast about what’s happened so far with various leagues and schools and where we’re headed.  While Adam and Patrick are full-blown Iowa Hawkeyes, this Illinois alum definitely respects their unrequited love for all things J Leman.  Enjoy!

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)

(Image from Bitten Bound)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. herbiehusker says:

    add

    Like

  2. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Geaux #1 Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

      • M says:

        I didn’t intend this to sound as mean as it does. I’m just amused.

        Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        M – until the BCS rankings come out, the polls don’t really mean much, if anything, but if some group says your team is #1, then you like it.

        Since the BCS was established, there have been formulas designed to calculate the BCS rankings, and all the AQ conferences approved that formula, including the Pac-10 and USC . In 2003, LSU and Oklahoma were the top two teams in the BCS rankings at the end of the season, so those two teams were chosen to participate in the 2004 Sugar Bowl which hosted the BCS National Championship game. USC finished third in the BCS standings, despite being ranked #1 in the human polls. Nobody of consequence disputed LSU’s place in the BCS NCG, as the Tigers were winners of seven straight, including a win over #5 Georgia in the SEC CG. Oklahoma had just lost the Big XII CG to K-State, but because the 03 Sooners were viewed as the greatest team of all time by some, prior to that setback, they made the BCS NCG.

        After LSU beat Oklahoma and USC defeated Michigan in the Rose Bowl, the AP writers named the Trojans #1. LSU won the BCS NCG and the crystal football. LSU won the national championship according to the rules all the conferences and teams agreed to. The BCS was and still is designed to pit #1 against #2 to determine the national champion. Unless there is an 8 or 16 team playoff, people will almost always disagree about who really was #1 or #2.

        Do I disagree with the AP writers’ conclusion in 2003? Yes. Was there decision irrelevent then? Yes. Am I happymany of those same AP writers are now voting LSU #1? Yes. Am I conflicted? No.

        Like

  3. Christian says:

    Ah, yes, I love new Frank the Tank posts. Add.

    Like

  4. Carl says:

    Let’s go Joe!

    Like

  5. Mike says:

    Must be a big game.

    @petethamelnyt

    Great stat from Wisconsin SID Brian Lucas: Wisconsin issued 95 media credentials for Nebraska media alone this weekend.

    Like

  6. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7036110/tennessee-ad-dave-hart-says-sec-continue-expand-13-teams

    “KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee athletic director Dave Hart says the Southeastern Conference will expand again and officials at each school need to have a number of frank discussions before moving forward.

    Hart says the addition of Texas A&M as the SEC’s 13th team was a good one, but the league’s leaders must take their next steps deliberately because the SEC will expand again. He says those conversations will take place “in short order.”

    The SEC announced Sunday that Texas A&M will join the conference in July after leaving the Big 12. SEC commissioner Mike Slive said later in the week that the league’s presidents and chancellors are not currently considering any other schools for admission and that he anticipates having no additional members for the 2012-13 season.”

    To me, this may tap the breaks on Missouri, but I’m skeptical because Georgia’s? AD already said that the ADs have no idea what’s going on in the SEC because Slive told them to just trust him and the presidents… I’d assume the SEC’s brass are working in secret on Missouri if that’s the path they’ve chosen to 14.

    Like

  7. bobo the feted says:

    Frank is half white, half asian? That would make him a cauc-asian….

    Like

  8. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    —My BS meter is pegged…

    http://www.argus-press.co.cc/

    “SOUTH BEND — With the current landscape of college football in disarray, The University of Notre Dame has decided to end its independence and join the Big Ten Conference. Under condition of anonymity, a high-ranking Big Ten official has confirmed that the Fighting Irish have applied to join the conference, as early as the 2013 football season. “We have been waiting a long time for this,” said the official. …”cont/…”

    Like

    • M says:

      “Although the Big Ten seemingly is a natural fit for the Irish, it is reported that they had explored joining other conferences such as the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Ivy League. The ACC declined interest in Notre Dame citing geographical concerns. Meanwhile, several sources within the Ivy League have confirmed Notre Dame’s interest, but stated that concerns of competitive balance as well as academic issues were a major roadblock to their joining. “The Ivy League does not allow athletic scholarships,” remarked one source close to the situation, “so Notre Dame would have to basically reconfigure their entire athletic department”.”

      kekekekekekekeke

      Like

    • Mike says:

      Hoax. A clever one, but IMHO a hoax.

      Like

    • imho says:

      That particular story may be BS, but Notre Dame is the closest it has ever been to joining the B1G. They just lost their conference, and the Big East is poised to be raided again. Moreover, as soon as these new larger conferences realign their reserved BCS spots, ND will lose their privileged position. Their leverage will only decrease as their position becomes more and more precarious. The writing is on the wall, they need to act soon while their leverage is still substantial.

      Not to mention the complete and utter silence from both side suggests things could be very serious… no denials, no affirmations of independance… just silence.

      Like

    • wmtiger says:

      Not even possible with the NBC contract still in place, correct? I’m sure there are buy-outs and such.

      Like

    • I sure do hope they get to keep that annual rivalry game with the Coast Guard Academy. That was a pretty big hoax clue right there

      Like

    • Guyasuta Genac says:

      Everyone, control your b0ners. Look up .cc country of origin. It’s an Australian…territory. No need to read the article.

      I am a super-supporter of ND to ACC but the college football landscape has to have a wholesale change, i.e. no playoffs, MNC, BCS bowls unless a member of one of 4/5 super-conference for my Irish half-brothers to join ANY conference.

      Great win over USF tonight. Hail to PITT!

      Like

  9. Jefferson says:

    The hoax part is them playing the US Coast Guard.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      I’m a mite skeptical the Big 12 would invite West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Texas Christian and Brigham Young. (If Missouri did leave for the SEC, who becomes #14 — South Florida?) The only way I see this happening is if the rest of the conference gave Texas a take-it-or-leave=it option regarding expansion, and UT, fearful of independence, gave in. (Which doesn’t seem UT-like at all.)

      If this happened (including USF), Rutgers and Connecticut would really have to beg.

      Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Assume Big 12 destroys the Big East. If the remaining three schools drop own to C-USA… and with BYU and TCU in the Big 12… that leaves 5 legit AQs. Now you have one more at-large spt.

      And that spot could be reserved for the non-AQ team with the best BCS standing, provided it is top 10. If such a team qualifies, then no AQ conference can have 3 teams in the BCS. However, if no such team qualifies, then and only then can a 3rd AQ team be in the BCS. Everyone happy?

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        No, the other spot goes to the winner of the MWC/CUSA champs game.

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          That works too.

          And why not put that in the R&L Carriers Bowl in New Orleans on December 17th? If you ran that bowl, wouldn’t you want that?

          First step towards a merger of bowls and playoffs. 🙂

          Like

      • Jefferson says:

        Why not the Big East destroying the Big XII?

        EAST
        Cincinnati
        WVU
        Louisville
        Rutgers
        UConn
        USF

        WEST
        TCU
        Kansas
        Texas Tech
        Kansas State
        Iowa State
        Baylor

        I’m assuming Mizzou goes to the SEC, and OU/oSu are paired, and Texas is alone. Where they go is probably Pac 12 and B1G respectively.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          A competitive conference on the field, an also-ran at the cash register. Plus, you’re asking the Big East to both be proactive and logical, two words its leadership doesn’t know unless the word “basketball” is involved.

          Like

  10. EZCUSE says:

    Question. IF… and this is a rather large if. But IF… Notre Dame was to think about the ACC… do you think that they would want TCU more than UConn or Rutgers as team #16?

    ND and TCU could agree to play their games in Jerry World or San Antonio or Houston. If so, ND could get even more of a national exposure. Conference game in the NE… conference game in the mid-atlantic… conference game in NC… conference game in Florida…. conference game in Texas… OOC game against Navy… OOC game against USC. That’s a pretty wide scope for just 7 games. Obviously, that’s too many road games for one year, but you get the gist.

    Meanwhile, if you are the ACC, you add a non-basketball school to placate FSU. You add a football giant in Notre Dame. If you are adding ND, what’s the difference in adding TCU geographically? Not that much farther west. TCU is closer to most ACC schools than most Big East schools.

    Figure this divide:

    North-Atlantic: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, ND
    South-Atlantic: Maryland, Virginia, Va Tech, TCU

    North Coastal: North Carolina 4
    South Coastal: Clemson, Ga Tech, FSU, Miami

    Play 1 each team in Atlantic or Coastal, plus one each of other division/pod.

    This is balanced enough that FSU wouldn’t think Va Tech was getting cakewalk to the CCG.

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      OR:

      Atlantic – Coastal

      TCU – ND
      Pitt – Maryland
      Va Tech – Virginia
      Syracuse – BC
      Duke- UNC
      Wake Forest – NC State
      Miami- FSU
      Clemson – Ga Tech

      Would that please FSU?

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        For the ACC championship game, the Atlantic representative would hardly bring any fans unless it’s Va. Tech or Clemson. All the better draws–FSU, NC State, UNC, Notre Dame, probably Virginia and Ga. Tech if the game’s in Charlotte–are in the Coastal.

        Like

  11. MSlive says:

    Love it!

    Like

  12. Michael in Raleigh says:

    “Eat a poop if you don’t have fun listening. Yes, eat one single poop. I don’t care whose, that’s not the point.” –Black Heart Gold Pants

    Man, what a great line!

    Like

  13. M says:

    Well this isn’t good for the Big 12:

    http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/9/28/2456836/big-12-expansion-committee-missouri-chancellor-kansas-stat/in/1280828

    The Missouri chancellor is no longer in charge of the expansion committee. No reason given, but it’s probably time to sound the raid sirens.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      We knew this earlier. No real surprise.

      A Missouri-to-SEC move probably boosts the chances of a multiple Big East exodus to the Big 12, especially if one of the goals is to finish off the Big East as a BCS league.

      Like

  14. Mike says:

    T Boone ❤ the SWC

    Like

  15. bullet says:

    Loki’s been talking to T. Boone.

    Like

  16. bullet says:

    @Frank
    I agree with you that there is no news out there. So why are so many boards convinced they have an invitation to one conference or another? People just making stuff up to see how people react? Overzealous fans? People trying to become the next “Chip Brown” by guessing from bits and pieces they do know?

    Stuff like this isn’t unusual, but the sheer volume and duration of it does seem to be.

    Like

    • @bullet – It’s probably because every single school in every AQ conference (outside of the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12) has talked to every single other AQ conference over the past few weeks. This could often be misinterpreted as something more concrete by people close to various programs (such as large dollar boosters) who hear that these discussions are happening.

      Like

  17. Richard says:

    For those who care about culture when it comes to conference expansion, here’s a good map that delineates where cultures are similar:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0670022969/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

    The B10 encompasses 3 cultural regions, 2 of which are fairly similar: “Yankeedom”, “Midlands”, and “Greater Appalachia”, with political power mostly concentrated in the fairly similar first 2.

    It’s instructive to note that the SEC has “the Deep South” at it’s heart (with parts of “Greater Appalachia”, including KY & TN), and, after taking TAMU, has taken one of the only 2 states outside of the SEC that has a significant “Deep South” portion (the other being NC, which is the heart of the ACC so is nearly impossible to pry away).

    In fact, you can see that the B12 was riven culturally, spread over no less than 6 cultural areas, which meant that member schools often had trouble seeing eye to eye. It’s little surprise that CU, being the only “Far West” school, sped away to join the only other BCS conference that had a “Far West” presence, while Nebraska went to join the only other BCS conference that had a “Midlands” presence (and no doubt thoroughly Midlands ISU, KU, & KSU, as well as mostly “Greater Appalachia” Mizzou and completely “Greater Appalachia” OU would join the B10 if they got an invite). Likewise, TAMU, located in “Deep South” East Texas, wanted to join its “Deep South” brethren, while UTexas, located in Austin, on the edge of Greater Appalachia (and in the Germanic Hill Country, which makes it similar to the Germanic Midlands), as well as “Greater Appalachia” OU, are cool about joining that “Deep South” dominated conference.

    We could also see that the “Left Coast” and “Far West” dominated Pac may have made the culturally sound decision of not expanding in to culturally dissimilar “Greater Appalachia”.
    Meanwhile, the B12 may actually be consolidating in to a more cohesive conference if it adds the 2 “Greater Appalachia” schools of WVU and Louisville while the ACC may have the most issues going forward of all the major conferences (I’m not including the BE), being spread over 4 cultural regions, from “Deep South” to “Tidewater” to “Midlands” to “Yankeedom”, with “Deep South” and “Yankeedom” being almost polar opposites in viewpoints about almost everything. It also doesn’t help the ACC that while it’s core is “Tidewater”, the “Tidewater” region only covers parts of VA, NC, and MD.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      So when considering B10 expansion, culturally, the best fit are “Yankeedom” or “Midlands” schools (though “Greater Appalachia” schools are acceptable culturally). That would include BC, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, Maryland, ND, ISU, KU, KSU, Mizzou as well “Greater Appalachia” schools WVU, UK, Tennessee, OU, OK State, and maybe north & west Texas schools like Texas, the Metroplex schools, and TTech (maybe VTech if you consider it “Appalachian”). Maybe Miami, which, with both northern and Cuban influences, belongs in no major North American “nation”.

      Of these, only Rutgers, Pitt, Maryland, & Texas fit the academic and research profile of the B10 well. BC, Syracuse, ND, and Miami are at least good in undergrad rankings (and Miami is close to AAU in research as well). ISU, KU, Mizzou, UK, Tennessee, and VTech are barely on the edge (similar to Nebraska, which means they’re added likely only if they’re a “king”). OU may be on the other side of that edge.

      In terms of desirability (“kingness” and footprint) which may be most important of all, there’s Texas & ND, then VTech & Miami. Pitt, unfortunately, is really hurt by being in the B10 footprint. Maryland (followed by Rutgers) are really the only non-kings that fit well both academically and geographically (and are outside the footprint).

      The B10 already added the 2 kings who were slam-dunk cultural fits and wanted to join (who knows if/when ND would want to join). It’s great that PSU was a terrific academic fit as well. All the other kings/somewhat-kings are on the edge culturally, and of those, only Texas is a great fit academically as well.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Maryland and Rutgers are really the only non-kings that fit well academically and geographically and culturally (and are outside the footprint), I should say

        Like

    • @Richard – Really interesting map. What probably helps the cohesiveness of the ACC is that a lot of its schools that are located in regions outside of Yankeedom (UNC, UVA, Duke, Miami, GT, etc.) still attract a lot of Yankee students, so I think it softens the cultural differences a bit. In contrast, most of the SEC schools are both located in the Deep South and have predominantly Deep South student populations and alumni bases. Florida State and Clemson are really the two schools in the ACC that look like true Deep South institutions, so it’s no surprise that a lot of people think that they’d be good fits in the SEC.

      Like

      • Further to this, I see the ACC as a whole as showing a gradual change across the cultural spectrum as you move from BC down southward. There might be large differences between BC and Clemson when you put them side-by-side. However, going from BC to Syracuse isn’t necessarily a massive leap, and then going from Syracuse to Maryland isn’t culturally crazy, and then Maryland to UVA is fairly natural, and as you move on to UNC and then Clemson thereafter, the ACC is at least a culturally connected chain after this latest expansion. (Interestingly enough, I’ve seen a whole lot of BC fans say that Clemson has emerged as one of their biggest rivals in the ACC.) In contrast, you’re correct that Colorado stuck out like a massive sore thumb in the Big 12. Even its geographic neighbor to the east (Nebraska) really had very little in common culturally with the Buffs.

        Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        I prefer this map:

        Like

    • Richard says:

      BTW, politically, this country has historically been contested between Yankeedom (and its allied Midlands) and the Deep South (and its allied Tidewater) ever since the beginning, with Greater Appalachia (if it votes as a bloc) often deciding the winner.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        You can see some of these characteristics even during expansion. For instance, of Yankeedom, he says “From the outset, there was emphasis on education . . . and the pursuit of the greater good, even if it required individual self-denial.” which we see as the B10 is the conference that insists the most that any addition meets the cut academically and first major conference to pool third-tier rights to form a conference network. No coincidence that it is the only conference with all members being in states that contain at least a portion of Yankeedom.

        Likewise, in Greater Appalachia, there’s “a deep commitment to individual liberty and personal sovereignty” (as well as “a warrior ethic”), so Texas likely thought that creating the LHN (and keeping the money) was it’s God-given right and shouldn’t offend anybody.

        It’s probably no surprise that the Deep South SEC, which doesn’t hold equality to be as great in importance, allows members to do whatever they want with their third-tier rights (and why TAMU, the most “Deep South” school in the B12, insisted on its unequal revenue guarantee after very “Greater Appalachia” OU and somewhat “Greater Appalachia” Texas were willing to give that up and refused the shares of the CU & UNL payouts the northern schools offered them).*

        * Greater Appalachians believe in the philosophy of “eat what you kill”, but just as they don’t like to be coerced, they’re uncomfortable unfairly coercing others**, which is why they mostly supported the Union and were anti-slavery during the Civil War even though they were mostly in southern states.

        ** Caveat: A heck of a lot is considered fair to those believers of “natural law”.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          BTW, a lot of this isn’t new, and was covered in “Albion’s Seed”:
          http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-Cultural/dp/0195069056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317355323&sr=1-1
          , where David Hackett Fischer talked about how the US was shaped by 4 of the major groups of settlers who came from different parts of Britain (with distinctly different religions, social statuses, and overall worldviews): New England/Yankeedom, Quaker (which Woodard expands to include Germanic “Midlands”), Cavalier Tidewater, and the Backcountry/Greater Appalachia.

          Like

        • glenn says:

          very interesting.  thank you for making us aware of this series.  i eagerly await the rest of the installments.

          you make very interesting observations regarding realignment issues and the various attitudes and world views among the eleven regional cultures.  the natures and behaviors of the elements in play seem to fall right along the lines developed in this series of articles.

          the difference a few miles can make is astonishing.  my line of work had me living extended periods in many parts of the country, so i got to know peoples of very different regions pretty well.

          a product of a tiny west texas town, i was perfectly at ease the times i lived on long island.  you can come from anywhere in the world — even rural west texas — and be accepted in greater nyc, but less than thirty miles away, as the crow supposedly flies, in connecticut, i was a fish out of water.  i worked two somewhat different places in connecticut for most of a decade and felt no more comfortable there the last day than i did the first day.  maybe less so.

          the fort worth star-telegram has forever had in its masthead the statement ‘where the west begins’, and that is absolutely the truth.  those who say that dallas is a deep south city by nature are pretty much right by my observation.  fort worth is cowtown.  when my mother’s family settled in that area, fort worth was a major place and dallas was a little crossroads community thirty miles away.  oil, bankers, and attornies made dallas.  many of us, when we heard that dallas was going to field a football team called ‘the cowboys’, chuckled and opined they should call them ‘the investment bankers’.  dallas is deep south, and thirty miles of that tired crow’s flight distant, fort worth is old west.

          similarly, texas and texas a&m as well, less than a hundred miles apart, might as well be on separate continents.  a&m is going where it spiritually belongs, and i’m delighted to see them go.  for them and for us.

          the observation that west texas and the university of texas are appalachian in nature certainly makes a lot of sense to me.  the frontier individualist spirit of boone — no, not that boone — and crockett is alive and well in texas.  what that means in terms of where texas can reasonably coexist i don’t begin to know.  but explain to me why the only two schools that really seem to understand texas are notre dame and byu.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Hi Glenn,

            Glad you liked my links.

            To add to your observations, the stereotype is that New Englanders are definitely “good fences make good neigbors” types (I hear that back in Old England, it’s even harder for an outsider to break in to social circles there, though since so many expats live in London now, virtually everyone is able to find a tribe they’re comfortable with).

            Very true about NYC. No one gives 2 sh*ts where anyone comes from; mostly, they just care if you can make money (and status).

            Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      That map also helps people understand when I say that Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio seem like different countries.

      Like

  18. hangtime79 says:

    Something I learned long ago…when its quiet that means people are talking and negotiating. The fact that we haven’t heard anything means wheels are still in motion and nothing is set.

    I don’t think the Big 12 knows if its going to be 10, 12, or 14.
    I don’t think Nieas has any clue or input on what the Big 12 is going to do. This is completely being driven by the presidents at this point.
    I don’t think Mizzou knows if its going to stay, go, or if it even has an offer someplace else.
    I don’t think the SEC knows who is there 14th.
    I don’t think the Big East knows who to add or if it will survive.
    and
    I still don’t trust Swofford. I got a real sneaky feeling he is up to something. He made the best move so far, while doing so quietly and unexpectedly and he still has cards to play. I would watch him closely.

    Given all this quiet since Sunday it means people are talking. When we start hearing things floated is when people have made a decision and sending up trial balloons. My guess is David Boren got calls from other university presidents on Friday morning telling him to shut his trap because everything he has done has damaged the league up to this point including his me-too press conference. The Big 12 presidents are making a last ditch effort to keep the conference together, the question is will it be enough. If Mizzou wants 10,12, or 14 they will dictate the terms. Also, I do believe the 6 year media rights commitment will be put into place regardless of if Mizzou leaves or not if for anything just to keep the chances of another school getting picked off at zero.

    So now we play the waiting game. Next up is vote by the curators to empower the university president to look for other leagues followed closely by either an invitation or a denial by the SEC. From there, who knows what happens. So long as the SEC is at 13 this thing can change at a moment’s notice.

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      What does Swofford have the ability to GET?

      And of the things he can get, what is the urgency regarding same?

      Like

      • hangtime79 says:

        The one piece on the board that’s worth something versus being conference filler, Notre Dame.

        Walk with me for a moment. Assume that Mizzou goes to the SEC. That means the entire BE is in play at that point, because the Big 12 will need at least 2 schools and maybe more. Louisville, TCU, and WVU would be natural fits with BYU in bouncing back to 12 schools. That puts the Big East out of business, but where does ND go? Does it stay with the BE B-Ball schools, go to the Big 10, or does it go to the ACC. We know UConn and Rutgers would need to find homes in the case of BE implosion. With the SEC safely at 14 the ACC could troll the lake for the 15 (ND) and 16 (Rutgers).

        Bringing ND on would have the effect of strengthening football and make FSU happy. As for money, we know ND doesn’t care a lick about it. I would almost bet ND would join the ACC out of spite just to say they didn’t join the Big 10. I would call this a very long shot, but if you are giving me 10-1, I’m definitely laying money down.

        Like

        • Chris says:

          So effectively the options presented to the SEC are these:

          1) stick with 13 teams and see how well that works
          2) drop back to 12 teams
          3a) expand via ACC
          3b) expand with non-aq team
          3c) expand with big east and hope it doesn’t decimate the league such that it merges with big 12 remnants
          3d) the inverse of 3c.

          2 and 3b are absolute blows to the collective SEC ego. The first presents all kinds of difficulties, the second is embarrassing and almost certainly lowers the academic standing.

          3c and 3d are likely to push notre dame to either the acc or the big ten, as they won’t want any part of the big 12, and the big east will not be there.

          So, it seems that swafford has to have his teams hold their line, so 3a is out.

          If that happens, in this expansion, the acc has not only grabbed two schools that fit the conferences image, but also increased the only chance at a big team joining, while also weakening the SEC. Jim delaney ought to buy swofford some drinks before the ND situation is resolved.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      I think it was interesting the SEC AD (I think it was UGA) saying the ADs were completely in the dark. The SEC expansion is being completely driven by Slive and the Presidents. Slive told him to “just trust us.” So I wouldn’t take the Tennessee AD’s comments to mean a whole lot. It might even be frustration from being forced to deal with 13 for an undefined period of time.

      Like

  19. duffman says:

    Going into the weekend….

    WEEK 4 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in [bracket]

    SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, [Arkansas], Florida
    7 wins vs 4 losses = 64% : losses to SEC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 0

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, [TAMU], Texas, Baylor
    5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to B12 schools = 2 : OOC losses = 0

    ACC 5/25 = 20% : Virginia Tech, [Florida State], Clemson, Georgia Tech, [UNC]
    5 wins vs 6 losses = 45% : losses to ACC schools = 2 : OOC losses = 4

    B1G 4/25 = 16% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, [Michigan State]
    8 wins vs 2 losses = 80% : losses to B1G schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2

    PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
    4 wins vs 5 losses = 44% : losses to PAC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 1

    MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
    4 wins vs 4 losses = 50% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 4

    BE 2/25 = 8% : [West Virginia], USF
    5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to BE schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2

    .
    .
    .
    .

    WEEK 5 beginning – Top 25 and conference alignment – Conference and OOC

    B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, Michigan State
    11 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 5 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 1 IND : 0 OTR

    SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Florida, *Arkansas
    11 teams : 4 SEC : 1 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, *TAMU, Baylor, Texas
    8 teams : 1 SEC : 3 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR

    ACC 4/25 = 16% : Virginia Tech, *Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech
    11 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 3 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR

    PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 5 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR

    MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
    5 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR

    BE 2/25 = 8% : USF, *West Virginia
    8 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 2 BE : 0 IND : 4 OTR

    moved in : Illinois
    dropped out : North Carolina
    * teams losing in previous week

    .
    .
    .
    .

    22 undefeated teams left, 17 max by end of week:
    B12 32% = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Baylor, ISU, KSU, TT
    Baylor vs Kansas State / Texas vs Iowa State
    SEC 18% = LSU, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina
    Alabama vs Florida
    B1G 18% = Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois
    Nebraska vs Wisconsin
    ACC 14% = Virginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech
    Virginia Tech vs Clemson
    PAC 4.5% = Stanford
    MWC 4.5% = Boise State
    BE 4.5% = USF
    CUSA 4.5% = Houston

    Like

    • duffman says:

      USF now with a loss as Pitt romps
      UH survives UTEP to stay perfect

      16 max left

      Like

      • duffman says:

        15 undefeated teams left, 14 max by end of week:
        B12 33% = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, KSU, TT
        Oklahoma vs Texas in week 6
        B1G 20% = Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois
        SEC 13% = LSU, Alabama
        ACC 13% = Clemson, Georgia Tech
        PAC 7% = Stanford
        MWC 7% = Boise State
        CUSA 7% = Houston

        Like

  20. duffman says:

    Frank,

    Thanks for the IU shout out in the interview. Listening you sound more like Wisconsin than Chicago in your voice.

    Like

    • @duffman – Interesting – that’s the first time that I’ve been told that I sound like a Wisconsinite!

      Like

    • drwillini says:

      Hey Duffman,
      My son was was just accepted to IU. What’s a Illinois/Purdue alumni Dad to do? The poor kid thinks he is going to see a final four and motor city bowl while he is there.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        My great grandfather was an Illinois grad and I have many Purdue cousins so I take it your kid is not going to study engineering 😉 If the Tan One can turn the corner then I think a Final Four may be in the realm!

        (insert shameless plug here)

        😉

        On the football front, I fear the Motor City may be reaching 😦 However, he may find a nice young lass while there, so all will not be lost.

        Was he early admit, or will he start fall of 2012 ?

        Like

        • drwillini says:

          Thanks guys, he is starting next fall, most likely a History/Econ/PolySci major. I’m just thrilled he’s going to a B1G school. Bringing this back a bit to our topic at hand, the respect and collaborative nature of our schools is unique among BCS conferences. We take if for granted, and other conferences (my wife is from the Big12) think its fake.

          Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        FF is no big deal to Hoosier fans. Now an NCAA championship, that’s another matter……….oops, I forgot you guys don’t know about that………

        Like

        • Jake says:

          @Frank – I have twice in my life been told that I sound like I’m from Minnesota, a state I’ve never even been to. I just hear a general sort of Midwestern accent from you. Nothing I would tie to a particular city/region.

          Like

        • duffman says:

          shroom,

          Say what you will, but I want more distance from UNC or Duke, and less distance from UK right now when it comes to THE banner hanging from the rafter. Butler and UL in the neighborhood at least gets it closer, but as they say “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades”.

          Like

      • Purduemoe says:

        Even though I went to Purdue for undergrad, I went to law school at IU. Really great campus, fun town. He will enjoy it quite a bit. I don’t see them making any final fours with clappy, but who knows. I think the football coach actually has the right idea, not playing kids who aren’t buying into the system/aren’t willing to put in the work. I mean one of those kids was in a pro-wrestling match instead of playing in the North Texas game. If Wilson sticks to his guns IU could improve in a few years.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      Duff:

      Maybe only 10% of the people in Chicagoland actually have a Chicago accent. Most Chicagoans carry a neutral (to my ears) north inlands or north midlands accent. BTW, the reason Frank sounds like a Wisconsinite to you (if you’re in southern Indiana, you’d be in midlands territory, often hearing a south midlands accent), it’s because most Wisconsinites also have a north inlands accent.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        BTW, North Inlands is also the accent of Michigan, the northern strip of Ohio bordering Michigan & Lake Erie, and upstate NY.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Bull. Northern (especially northwestern) Ohio and southern Michigan sound very different. 100 miles makes a huge impact there. LP and UP Michigan are very different, too.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Well, that’s what the map says. They do have UP Michigan in another accent area (same one as northern Minnesota and North Dakota).

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Whoops. Most of NW Ohio isn’t in the same area as MI. Toledo is, though, as are Cleveland and the old Western Reserve.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Rural Ohio and urban Ohio sound very different. That’s true for many states (Atlanta vs Georgia, for example). Rural Ohio sounds more southern than one would expect. Lower Michigan is much more nasal. The UP may as well be Canada.

            I wonder how much of an accent is based on location and how much is based on population density (rural, exurban, suburban, urban).

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Cincy, Columbus and Cleveland are very different sounding. And from Cincy, you cross the Ohio River into Kentucky and it changes dramatically even though you are in the same metro area. Another 70 miles down I-75 to Lexington and it changes again.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Rural accents virtually never change. Maybe if there is a lot of traffic in a rural stretch between 2 cities with the same accent, the communities there may adopt the accent of the 2 cities (for instance, while I’d read that St. Louis was an island of Northern Inlands dialect in a sea of Midlands, possibly due to the heavy German concentration, evidently, a string of small towns between Chicago and St. Louis exhibit Northern Inlands now as well), but in general, accents change very slowly in the countryside. They change much faster in cosmopolitan cities that have a lot of contact with people with non-native accents. That how Boston and NYC became (different types) of non-rhotic after southern England (London) started dropping their R’s.

            In fact, the Northern Cities Vowel Shift is changing the accents of many folks who live around the Great Lakes (and cities there) as we speak. So while in ’30’s Chicago, what you’d hear is the “accentless” standard American that we all tend to hear on radio and TV news broadcasts (thanks to the powerful wattage of WGN, the Chicago dialect of the ’30’s because the radio and then TV standard), current Chicagoese is quite different. You’d hear dialectal differences across generations. This is especially noticeable in Shanghai, where ’30’s Shanghainese is much closer to Ningbo dialect (because in the ’30’s, half the city could trace their ancestry to in or around Ningbo; now, it’s more like 10%; yes, Shanghai has had a massive influx of people), the Shanghainese of people my age is noticeably different from the Shanghainese of my grandparents.

            Like

      • mstinebrink says:

        @Richard – Where’s the map of accents? I heard Chicagoese. I grew up in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, where Chicagoland expats predominate. I definitely heard Chicagoese.

        Like

  21. duffman says:

    I put up the three posts in the last thread, the one about the saturday flight from columbus to college station was never answered, but the other two seem to have caught an eye or two somewhere!

    http://tigersports.columbiamissourian.com/2011/09/28/the-curious-case-of-the-plane-that-went-to-birmingham/

    Looks like somebody is reporting about the third link and has identified that the planes owner is not as distanced from MU as earlier reported. The owner said he had no ties to MU and now this article says:

    “The plane, tail number N904RB, is registered to a group called Columbia Flight Group LLC. That corporation’s listed address is 209 E. Broadway, Columbia, Missouri, which also happens to be the offices of Coil Construction Co., a Columbia-based contractor. Coil Construction was a Tiger Level (the second-highest) donor to the Tiger Scholarship Fund in 2010.”

    What I find most interesting in the article is the reporting on the trip to Birmingham was the total glossing over of several trips just before to small airports near B1G headquarters in the Chicago area. Why make a big deal about the Birmingham trip, and than make no mention of the multiple trips near chicago? Is the MU administration stirring the SEC pot for a back door deal into the B1G?

    Like

    • Sportsman says:

      I’d guess that it was either actual business in Chicago or they were checking the odds for MU to the B1G. If the latter is the case, then the fact that they went on to Birmingham is pretty much all we need to know.

      Like

    • wolverines says:

      BYU, WV, Louisville, TCU has to be on the short list.. After those four, you start reaching for schools that belong in C-USA.

      Like

  22. bullet says:

    Big 12 still tossing around scenarios:

    http://www.star.telegram.com/2011/09/29/3408229/expanding-east-or-west-big-12.html

    I imagine their west scenarios even include MWC teams, but from the lack of talk out there, they probably haven’t contacted anyone. Fresno/Boise/BYU, maybe SDSU/TCU. I think they’d be better off going east with the distances, other than BYU.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      The proper link:

      http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/29/3408229/expanding-east-or-west-big-12.html

      Because of TCU’s location and its ties to the Big East, the conference the Horned Frogs are scheduled to join next year, the school remains an option for Big 12 expansion in either direction. Neinas said expansion discussions are preliminary, with no majority opinion on an ideal configuration for an expanded league.

      “There’s not even a plurality,” Neinas said.

      Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard floated models that included up to 16 teams after a Tuesday meeting of Big 12 athletic directors.

      I don’t envision 16, but wouldn’t rule out 14 — adding Brigham Young, Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, Texas Christian and West Virginia if Missouri leaves (which looks increasingly likely).

      Like

    • Mike says:

      On TCU

      http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/09/big_12_trying_to_take_tcu_befo.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


      What it means is that TCU could be out of the Big East before it ever officially joins. According to two college officials, it would be an easy departure for the Horned Frogs, since they would only have to pay a $5 million exit fee and aren’t bound by the 27-month waiting period penalty unless they are Big East members as of July 1.

      [snip]

      If Missouri stays, TCU could be the only target of the Big 12, further crippling the Big East, which is still trying to figure out how to deal with the announced defections of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC.

      Like

    • Mike says:

      Tramel Compares eastern expansion vs. western expansion.

      http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2011/09/30/big-12-football-big-east-merger-would-mean-what/


      Brigham Young is hard to deal with. That’s what people from the Mountain West say. They say Texas overflows with the milk of human kindness in conference talks, compared to dealing with BYU. I don’t know why West Virginia, Louisville or Cincinnati would be any trouble. Edge East.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        “They say Texas overflows with the milk of human kindness in conference talks, compared to dealing with BYU.”

        —That is one of the singular funniest quotes I’ve seen during the whole expansion carousel.

        Like

        • M says:

          My favorite is
          “”We’re good people. And we do it the right way. And we’ve got 550 kids that we love, and we treat them the way they’re supposed to be treated. And we’re in it for kids. We didn’t do the Pac-12 (because of) the kids. It wasn’t money, it wasn’t anything else. We don’t want to put our kids in airplanes and have them in airplanes half their life going back and forth. ”

          Than why did you twice seriously negotiate with the Pac-12 only to pull out when they wouldn’t let you keep your network? Were you expecting them to give in to your demand to move their schools closer to Texas?

          Like

      • bullet says:

        Anyone who thinks the Big 12 is dysfunctional and cutthroat should have followed the history of the WAC and MWC.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Cutthroat has been ACC/Big East and definitely the MWC split from the WAC. You want plans being drawn up in the middle of night, that’s where the really sharp-knifed business has been.

          Like

  23. Mike says:

    Really

    http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/32384521


    The Big 12 should not expand in order to maximize its earning power, a source intimately involved in the conference’s TV negotiations told CBSSports.com on Thursday.

    “If it were me I’d try to stay where I am,” said the source. “Nine months ago they had the same money for 10 teams. Is anything going to change if they have nine?”

    Texas A&M’s formal departure to the SEC this week reduced the Big 12 to nine teams. Missouri is still contemplating whether also to pursue membership in the SEC. With nine teams, the source said, not only would the conference get an expected windfall for its primary rights fees following the 2015 season, it would provide nine more non-conference games as inventory.

    “That’s more attractive to the networks than BYU-Iowa State,” said source who did not want to be identified because of his relationship with the league.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Might as well rename it the SWC if they really want to stick at 9. Heck, if Missouri leaves, it’d basically be the SWC all over again with Oklahoma as Arkansas and Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State/Oklahoma State instead of the 4 Texas schools that got left behind…

      Like

  24. Mike says:

    Everyone may want to take a peek over at Mr SEC. He’s doing a multi-part series on expansion.

    http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/expansion-by-the-numbers-1-grading-potential-sec-partner/


    So we’re going to try and put some hard and fast data together to help explain why School A is probably more attractive to SEC presidents than School B… even though School B might be able to whip School A’s rump on a football field. We want to take all of those variables that are floating around out there and condense them into one, simple, quick series of posts. A series of posts that you can use to draw your own conclusions.

    Like

    • Mike says:


      In Part 2 of our series on SEC expansion, we begin to break down the numbers for 35 different schools. The schools we’ve included (and, no, not all of these are realistic) are: Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest (from the ACC); Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers, South Florida and West Virginia (from the Big East); Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech (from the Big 12); as well as wild cards East Carolina, Navy, Notre Dame, Penn State and TCU.

      http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/expansion-by-the-numbers-2-television-markets/

      Like

    • Mike says:

      The goal of expansion is grow the geographic footprint of a conference. You don’t do that by inviting neighbors. However, the SEC has shown that if it’s going to expand outward, it’s not going to get too far outside of its comfort zone. And that’s wise. If there’s any conference driven by culture it’s surely the SEC.

      http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/expansion-by-the-numbers-4-proximity/

      Like

    • mstinebrink says:

      Dammit! Mr. SEC’s work – and the baseball playoffs – may be the final straw in convincing me to moth ball my attempt to index all schools’ expansion appeal, relative to all of the other AQ conferences. Mine is based on the 20-to-80 scale, which is used in baseball scouting [and invented by Branch Rickey?], where 50 is average, 60 is one standard deviation better than average, 70 is two standard deviations, etc. Here are the preliminary results, from the B1G’s perspective, with all schools considered “free agents” and the factors weighted as follows: 80% football brand name, 9% territorial expansion, 9% academics, and 2% basketball.

      Texas – 60.8
      Notre Dame – 58.6
      Florida – 58.2
      A&M – 56.4
      USC – 55.9
      Alabama – 55.1
      Miami – 55.0
      GA Tech – 53.4
      Auburn – 52.9
      UCLA – 52.2
      Clemson – 52.0
      Oklahoma – 50.1

      [Preliminary!] Conclusions:

      (1) These are the only schools that are better than the average B1G school, when considering the *17 subfactors that I selected. Obviously, some of these might fail to pass the smell test…or Richard’s cultural considerations posts! I had been contemplating how to include “cultural fit,” as a factor, and Richard’s posts have showed me the way.

      (2) All but one school is <1 standard deviation more appealing than the average B1G school. In other words, there are no Willie Mays's on the free agent market. Of course, these ratings are indexed to B1G-average and not to the average FBS school or AQ school. So, the bar is set relatively high. In other words, the average hitter on the Yankees is better than the average hitter in MLB, and Willie Mays might not look so extraordinary, if your frame of reference is the Yankees lineup and not the entire MLB player universe.

      (3) Most of the presumptive B1G candidates would bring down the mean:

      VA Tech – 49.1
      Florida St – 48.3
      Mizzou – 46.4
      Syracuse – 46.1
      Rutgers – 45.5
      Pitt – 45.2
      BC – 45.0
      Kansas – 43.8
      Maryland – 43.6

      * The factors/subfactors:

      FOOTBALL BRAND NAME (80%)
      – # of fans (from Nate Silver's work) [75%…of the "Football Brand Name" factor]
      – Win%, 1965-2010 [10%]
      – Win%, 1990-2010 [5%]
      – National championships index (weighted to favor more recent championships) [10%]

      TERRITORIAL EXPANSION (9%)
      – State population, 2010 [30%]
      – % change in state population, 1980 to 2010 [15%]
      – Salience (# of fans / state population) [15%]
      – New state? [20%]
      – Distance from Chicago (nearer is better) [20%]

      ACADEMICS (9%)
      – % applicants admitted [20%]
      – Student enrollment [5%]
      – Endowment per student [10%]
      – Research spending / student [20%]
      – AAU member [20%]
      – US News ranking [25%]

      BASKETBALL (2%)
      – NCAA tourney appearances [50%]
      – National championships index [50%]

      Thoughts, comments, suggestions, or words of encouragement/discouragement???

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Hey mstinebrink:

        Thanks for the work! What if it is weighted the following way:
        25% football brand
        25% culture
        25% academics
        15% territorial expansion
        10% bball
        ?

        I think that’s closer to the weighting of the B10 presidents. To them, football brand is important, but I feel that culture and academics are as important to them. Both PSU and UNL fit the first 2 very well, and PSU actually fit the top 4 very well.

        It’d be interesting to see how well the current 12 members do in with these criteria as well. I’d quibble a bit with the academic categories, bu they’re just quibbles.

        BTW, to the SEC, it’s probably
        35% football brand
        35% culture
        20% territorial expansion
        5% academics
        5% bball

        Would be cool to see how the list of candidates looks for them as well.

        Like

        • mstinebrink says:

          Thanks for the feedback, guys! My intent was(/is?) to get my spreadsheet up on Google Documents, so that others could tweak the weighting of the factors as they see fit. The spreadsheet would also be formatted so that it would be very simple to change the weighting of the factors to reflect what might be the priorities of a given conference. To do so will require a couple-three hours of Excel time, as the data needs to be checked for errors and updated, in the case of some of the academic data, in particular. The spreadsheet is also pretty rough around the edges and not easily understood, since it wasn’t originally designed for outside consumption.

          Here’s to hoping that the Brewers clinch, tonight, so that I have a free night or two, this week!

          Like

      • M says:

        One of the reasons I keep subscribing to the comments is all the crazy people (in a good way).

        My suggestions:
        Football brand is the largest consideration, but I don’t think it’s 9 times more important than academics and territory or 40 times more important than basketball. I would probably go more like a 60-10-20-10 or 60-15-15-10.

        Under football brand, I would de-emphasize or remove completely the Silver data as it has too many flaws to be very useful. Instead, I would go with attendance and television ratings, preferably over a 5 year time period.

        Under territory, I would include fans of all Big Ten schools in your “salience” rating. The idea is that you want to reach that tipping point where BTN has to go on basic cable.

        Under academics, I would increase the research percentage and remove the per student component. I would remove the endowment part as that doesn’t effectively measure anything for state schools. I also would lower the percentage on undergraduate measures. The end result would be 40% research, 30% AAU, 10% acceptance rate, 10% USNews Rankings, 10% enrollment.

        For basketball, I might substitute “Total tournament games played” instead of appearances. This would reward teams that consistently make deeper tournament runs, even if they don’t quite get over the hump.

        Like

        • mstinebrink says:

          I agree with you on the Silver data. There are flaws, but I think that it’s the best that we have. I also think that it might’ve better passed the smell test, if the numbers were rounded to the nearest hundred-thousand fans, so as not to appear as exact as they do.

          Like

      • @mstinebrink – I like it! As Richard noted, different conferences have different priorities, but I like where you’re going with this.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        mstinebrink,

        I think an interesting addition would be showing how all the current B10 schools would rank if they were no longer in the B10. It might also provide a sanity check on your results as many of us are more familiar with the B10 schools and you can get a gut reaction to the results.

        Like

    • Mike says:

      Part 9: Academic Fit


      To find the academic fits out there, we first had to identify the SEC’s profile. And here’s what that profile is (not counting soon-to-be-member Texas A&M):

      * A public institution. Vanderbilt is the SEC’s only private school.

      * A school with an average total enrollment of about 27,000 students (typically with a lesser emphasis on post-graduate studies and research).

      * A school ranked somewhere between #58 (Florida) and #157 (Mississippi State). Vanderbilt ranks #17, but it’s certainly not the norm in the SEC. Note also that while presidents would love to nab a school ranked highly (meaning a school with a superb reputation), those schools aren’t likely to jump to Slive’s league. Call it the “halo effect.” School presidents want to associate with other top-name institutions in order to improve their own school’s reputation (and donations).

      * A school with no religious affiliation. Not a single SEC school is tied to a church.

      * A school in a somewhat rural area. With the exception of Vanderbilt, no SEC school is located in a city with more than 300,000 inhabitants. This “one-horse town” factor is one reason SEC fans are so passionate about their schools’ athletic exploits. With the exception of Nashville, there are no SEC towns featuring major league teams. There are no “commuter” schools.

      http://www.mrsec.com/2011/10/expansion-by-the-numbers-9-academic-fit/

      Like

  25. Mike says:

    Delany: Big Ten’s content for now

    http://www.omaha.com/article/20110929/BIGRED/709299779/1001#delany-big-ten-s-content-for-now


    To expand, we must make a compelling case for it,” Delany told The World-Herald. “Right now, we can’t make a compelling case for it.

    “We looked around with interest, and we looked around to analyze. We try not to over-react, and I don’t expect that we will.”

    [snip]

    “We really did a lot of modeling on 14 and 16 teams,” Delany said. “We just felt like we couldn’t maintain the essentials of who we are.”

    The Big Ten already is in 30 percent of the country, and impacts adjacent markets.

    “So size and scope is important,” he said. “But it’s not the driving force. The driving forces are ‘What is our DNA?'”

    [snip]

    “That doesn’t mean a 16-team model doesn’t fit some,” Delany said. “But it’s not our first inclination. We’ll try to figure out other ways to increase value, whether it is competitive value or television value.

    “You have to look at expansion, television and other things you read so much about as a means to an end and not an end in itself.”

    Delany said the Big Ten wants its members to have the means to properly fund the teams a school sponsors and to create fair and healthy competition.

    “But it will be done in the context of who we are,” he said. “If an opportunity arises to do that with a larger number or schools, maybe some day we will.

    Like

    • footballnut says:

      Latest article on expansion in Columbia paper states the Govenor, the AD, and the football coach all want to move to the SEC. The decision rests with the curators, though. The last four curators were appointed by the present govenor. If politics have any influence on this whole deal, I’d put my money on Mizzou joining the SEC, if that door is available. We’ll find out next Tuesday when they take a vote on what they’re going to do.

      Meanwhile, can’t wait to see Nebraska/Wisconsin play. I’m an Illinois homer, so go Illini…beat NU for #5 in a row!!

      Like

    • Purduemoe says:

      Delaney keeps saying the same thing, we are happy at 12 and don’t want 16. I think it might be time to start believing him. Everyone knows that if Notre Dame calls B1G isn’t going to say no. Without ND, I would guess we are set.

      Like

      • gas1958 says:

        I agree. I no longer think ND will ever join the B1G, or any conference. The dance that would be required, and the spin that would ensue make it prohibitive. ND: “They begged us to join!”
        B1G: “We did them a service by taking them in!” We’d never sort out who asked whom to do what. More than that, I don’t care anymore. As Chevy Chase said in an old SNL skit re: the USSR boycotting the ’80 Olympics: “The Russians? [insert ND] Screw ’em!!”

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Fat and arrogant Smaller 10……basing a 50 year decision on 2 year factors……stupid….

      Like

      • Purduemoe says:

        Seriously, whats with the Smaller 10 stuff? Did Jim Delaney kill your puppy or something?

        Like

      • Eric says:

        If they are serious about staying at 12, I’m happy. At least our conference still feels half like it’s the same conference it’s always been (even if the divisions and CCG are going to take some getting used to). At 16, the conference wouldn’t have even felt like the Big Ten anymore.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        Well, mushroom, you’re one of those people who doesn’t want to add a school that isn’t a cultural fit. Here’s the thing: 2 of the 3 kings originally outside the B10 who fit the B10’s Yankee/Midlands culture perfectly have already been added, and the third is Notre Dame. Even if you look at non-kings, only Rutgers, Pitt, & Maryland fit both the culture and academics/research perfectly, and none of them are even at the level of MSU (which is probably perfectly at the median of the conference) in support or money. Pitt is closest, but they’re geographically hindered by bringing in no new market (if they were located in NJ, they may already have been added). If you expand the list to schools to those who are well regarded for undergrad education but not in to research (like ND), you’d have BC & Syracuse, both of which also are non-kings below MSU’s level in support or money. Expand the academic criteria (to say, around Nebraska’s level), and you’d have UConn, ISU, KSU, KU, and Mizzou, all of which would be near the bottom of the B10 in support and money if they joined (except maybe Mizzou and KU basketball; maybe UConn bball, though that didn’t get them in to the ACC). Regardless, I don’t see the B10 letting academic standards slide (remember that Yankees care more about education than any other cultural group) like they did with Nebraska to let in a non-king (unless they’re potentially paired with someone else).

        The B10 also includes parts of the Backcountry/Greater Appalachia (though 8 of the 12 schools are in states with no Backcountry presence, and of IL, IN, and OH, Yankee/Midlands Chicagoland dominates the state, so only tOSU is partially Backcountry and IU is fully in Backcountry territory), so maybe we could look at schools located in the Backcountry/Greater Appalachia. The only problem there is that the Appalachian/Backcountry ethos of “eat what you kill” is quite different from the Yankee ethos of supporting the greater good even if it means individual sacrifice. Still, let’s look at the Backcountry schools:
        WVU, UK, Tennessee, OU, OK State, maybe Texas, maybe TTech, and maybe VTech.

        None except Texas make the grade academically. UK and Tennessee won’t leave the SEC anyway. OU and (less so) VTech are kings, but while VTech may be able to look like Nebraska academically, OU’s a little worse.

        There’s also Miami, which is a mix of northern and Cuban, so is on the edge culturally and on the edge academically (like BC and Syracuse, a well regard undergrad school, though also almost AAU, unlike those 2) as well as on the edge in “kingness”.

        So who do you want to add, Mushroom? Schools that dilute the academic reputation of the conference without boosting the conference’s athletics reputation, schools that would do nothing to enhance the conference (or even make it more money) but just make it bigger, or schools that are barely a fit (or aren’t a fit) culturally? Maybe you want a school that’s all 3?

        The fact of the matter is, without ND coming in (or maybe Texas, which passes the academic and brand/money tests with flying colors and may be a fit culturally, it’s hard for the B10 to justify expansion. If there existed a school that fit culturally well, passed the academics/research hurdle with no problems, and had as much fan support as MSU, they’d probably already be added, but while one of Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse/BC (and maybe even UConn) maybe perfectly OK as #14 to come in with ND, 2 of them (or one of them + Mizzou) just doesn’t make a lot of sense. I can’t for the life of me understand why you want to expand just so that the B10 average athletic reputation, or average academic reputation, or per school payout (or all 3) are lowered.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Rutgers and Missouri….and ND in everything but football

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            I don’t see how the BIG gets more visibility, and is more relevant, when the main competitors are both at 14 teams. Seems to me clearly it is quite the opposite.

            MO is a state flagship school with 34000 enrollment from a state with a population of 6M or so. There is no #2 school in MO of note. It has good support in both basketball and football. It is ranked #90 in US News academically, and is AAU.

            Rutgers ia s flagship state school with 38000 enrollment on its main campus, rated 68 in US News.
            Again, it is the onlly large state school of note, in a state with 9M population.

            Rutgers is easily the #1 BT potential target in the East…same is true of MO in the MW. I’m not counting TX and ND as they are currently pipe dreams. I’m not counting Maryland as 60-75% of the Maryland fans don’t want to be in the Diminished 10…

            Problem is, if Rut and MO go bye bye, and ND and TX don’t ever join (which looks likely at this point), the Smaller 10 is stuck at 12 indefinately….there are no other logical prospects for 13 and 14.

            Like

          • joe4psu says:

            mg,

            I’m fall for RU and Mizzou, well RU anyway, for all the reasons that you’ve listed but ND as a non-fb member? Let’s not make that mistake. Add RU and Mizzou and wait for UT and ND to play out their hands.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Richard,

            I see shrooms point. Looking at ARWU for 2011:

            #29 MD – for future ACC ads (think of “insurance plan”)
            #30 UNC – will need ACC destruction to join
            #38 Pitt – I still think the best add, but understand the overlap argument
            #39 RU – NJ and Philly footprint

            since next group is range, I am using the lowest number

            #54 Ga Tech
            #54 UVA

            note: Georgia and Iowa are #54’s

            #69 VT
            #69 Miami (for Frank)

            note: FSU, LSU, NCST, KU, UT, and Nebraska are in this group

            #90 Uconn (a dark horse B1G possible)
            #90 UC – tOSU overlap
            #90 Kentucky (like MD the boundary school for another conference)
            #90 Missouri
            #90 Notre Dame

            If the BTN “needs to feed” then getting MD and RU make the most sense while waiting for UT and ND, as Pitt and UNC have other issues. Next in line would be UVA in my opinion as adding MD as #13 and UVA as #14 would insure UNC & Duke to round out 16 if ND and TX stay independent. The point I think shroom is trying to make is at least lock down 1 school now to ensure it does not fall behind in the future. Any school on the list above should easily be an upper quartile school long term, so it is not like you are adding a directional school sitting in the 300 – 500 range!

            Missouri and Maryland are both AAU schools, and adding both gives you a east and west expansion while holding the last spots for UT and ND as last east and west expansion. If you are looking at ND, then by default you should at least analyze the state schools in the same range or lower, because the state schools can build alumni by volume, and they have the state coffers in addition to their endowments!

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            I’m not counting Maryland as 60-75% of the Maryland fans don’t want to be in the Diminished 10…

            A year ago, you’d probably have the same percentage of Missouri fans oppose a move to the SEC. That has certainly changed, and so it has in College Park. The only Terrapin fans who would be actively opposed are those very casual fans who only care about basketball games vs. UNC and Duke and nothing else. The change in mindset is a gradual one.

            And if the Maryland administration didn’t think it has a shot for the Big Ten (and state support to do it), it wouldn’t have lobbied so intensively to whittle the proposed new ACC exit fee from $34M to $20M.

            I’m not saying Maryland to the Big Ten is a fait accompli, merely noting that if Mizzou heads to the SEC, which looks more and more likely, UMd joins Rutgers at the clear head of the class of candidates who don’t bring baggage or a sense of self-entitlement to the party. (In other words, ideal fits for the Big Ten philosophy.)

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I value athletic brands and academics, so my list of non-ND/Texas schools that the B10 should consider who are still in the B10 range culturally are
            1. VTech (partially Appalachian culture, but they likely won’t look to throw their weight around like Texas (or maybe even ND).
            2. Miami
            3. Maryland
            4. Rutgers
            5. Pitt (yes, they’re in the footprint, but are also really the only contender that wouldn’t be at the bottom of the B10 in one of academics/athletic fan interest. If games are streamed online in the future, cable footprint wouldn’t matter so much).
            6. UVa (the Tidewater is shrinking as midlands cultural norms are pushing in to VA).

            Like

      • 50 year decision? Seriously? Between state budget cuts (and they’re structural, not cyclical), the bursting of the federal loan bubble (look for a massive default explosion in the next 3-5 years), and the adoption of online/distance education models (why have 10 state campuses replicating courses/physical plants, when 1 central server center will do?), the higher education industrial complex and attendant big-time college sports programs have about 10-15 years–maybe 20 at best–before they begin an inexorable decline. The smart folks are going to take all the money they can before they run for the exits.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          1. Leading research universities (including public ones) depend more on research grants than state funding these days. Universities like PSU (and I believe UVa and Michigan as well) get something like 3% of their operating budget from their state.

          2. Students with federal loans with insane default rates are largely at for-profit diploma mills. Students who graduate from the top 100 or so in the USN&WR rankings have enough earning power after graduation that private institutions will still lend them money. Not to mention that the top privates now are so rich that they can offer most students with financial need financial aid packages that include no loans.

          3. Delivery may be done more online, but if that proves profitable, you don’t think traditional brick&mortar universities would move more heavily in to that space? Tell me, would you regard a degree from the University of Phoenix to be the same as one from the University of Michigan, even if both were completely online? If you look at history, you’ll notice that university reputations are very, very, very slow to change. It is almost impossible for a university to move up the ranks extremely quickly (or to fall extremely quickly).

          4. People in Alabama will stop caring about the Tide and Tigers if online education takes off? Sorry, that logic doesn’t flow.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            And universities are slow to change. I think a lot more students will be at on-line universities. So the FCS schools will have a shrinking proportion of the population. That will have unpredictable impacts on college sports. And if the existing universities do more on-line, that will weaken the alumni/university link.

            And since you are right about it being slow to change, the 10-15 year estimate is way too quick. But I do think by mid-century college education will look a lot different than it does now. By that time, most of the people running universities will be those who are HS and elementary students now.

            Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        As opposed to reactionary moves that are nothing more than growth for growth’s sake?

        Please save us from that sort of brilliance.

        Like

  26. Mike says:

    Clay Travis of Out Kick the Coverage: Mizzou is free and clear to leave.

    http://outkickthecoverage.com/reality-there-are-no-barriers-to-missouri-in-sec.php


    Let’s dive in and consider the situation that Missouri faces so you guys have better information to combat those who would argue that Missouri’s fate is hemmed in by the buyout that would be owed under the Big 12 bylaws, by lawsuit threats, or by other nonexistent issues. Missouri factions that don’t want to leave are saying the cost would be $40 million and that a lawsuit would ensue that could cost even more. Please. That’s not the case. The actual cost to Missouri for jumping to the SEC would be in the neighborhood of $12 million. And if the school really fought it could end up being nothing at all.

    On the buyout:


    Look back at the liquidated damages provision of the bylaw for the true ticking time bomb: “each Member Institution agrees that the amount of revenue that would have been otherwise distributable to a Withdrawing Member pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the then current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%).”

    Okay, that means the payment amount is actually going to come from 2015 and 2016, the final two years of the “Additional Term.”

    Only, you guessed it, A&M and Missouri would be gone by then so neither school will receive a dime of revenue from the Big 12 in 2015 or 2016.

    So if you apply the above language, 90% x 0 = 0.

    Uh oh.

    Now, I don’t think the legal argument would win — most judges would probably apply the intended liquidated damages clause holding that the purpose of a liquidated damages clause is actually to have a liquidated damages clause — but it’s definitely yet another flaw in a tremendously flawed Big 12. And could a judge be unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to a huge entity like the Big 12 that made this drafting mistake? Of course.

    This is a flaw that’s so gigantic the Big 12 might not want to sue under the contract for fear of losing and providing notice to all members that the exit fee for the next couple of years is $0.

    Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman said lat year he believed he had a strong argument against giving up any money.

    ‘I’m also cognizant of the risks associated with litigation,” Perlman said last year. “What I think is the law may not turn out to be the law. I’m disappointed, as an academic, that my curiosity about the legal claims won’t be resolved. But when you look at everything, I think it made sense in this setting to get this behind us and avoid the risks of litigation.'”

    Certainly the Big 12 believes this is a litigation risk as well, it’s why the league ultimately settled with Nebraska for $9.25 million and with Colorado for $6.86 million.

    That settlement represented 47.6% of the payout that both schools would have owed under the bylaws. If A&M and Missouri did the same with its projected $26.1 million that would come to $12.4 million.

    That, my friends, is no penalty at all.

    Like

  27. greg says:

    Go Hawks! #1 bye week.

    Like

  28. Jake says:

    Go Rangers!

    Like

  29. jj says:

    Spar-tans!!

    Time to win at the shoe for crying out loud.

    Like

  30. jj says:

    Tigers 10
    Yanks 0

    Heard it here first!

    Like

  31. GreatLakeState says:

    Wow. Anyone up for some Anti-B1G bile, courtesy of Sports Illustrated?
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/paul_finebaum/09/29/big.ten/
    Some of his points are valid, but very selective in regards to his assessment
    of the SEC.

    Like

    • redwood86 says:

      Totally valid article. When ALL of the so-called Bigger-10 contenders start playing and beating OOC big boys (sorry but Oregon St., Miami, Colorado, Fresno St., Washington, and San Diego St. don’t count) we can start to take the Bigger 10 seriously. But when the conference leaders’ marquee OOC games are a home blow-out loss to Alabama, loss at Notre Dame, and miracle win at home against Notre Dame the conference deserves to be dissed.

      The SEC schedules lots of OOC patsies too, BUT their contenders (Alabama, LSU, Florida, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia) all play at least 1 pretty tough OOC game every year. LSU took on Oregon and West Virginia, Florida plays a rivalry game v. Miami and/or Florida St., Arkansas plays Texas A&M, South Carolina plays a rivalry game v. Clemson, and Georgia has both Boise St. and a rivalry game against Georgia Tech. AND the SEC doesn’t lose many OOC non-rivalry games against contenders.

      Like

      • greg says:

        Alabama, Pitt, Oregon St., Arizona St., Miami, Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Colorado, and Washington don’t count, but Oregon, WVU, Miami (interesting that this is on both lists), Texas A&M, Clemson and GA Tech do count?

        SEC has had more success, but their OOC scheduling is hardly any tougher than the B10.

        Rivalry losses don’t count? I guess that ISU loss isn’t half bad.

        Like

      • duffman says:

        The “validity” argument is the nature of SEC football’s in state OOC game

        UK vs UL = SEC + BE viewers
        UGA vs GT = SEC + ACC viewers
        UF vs FSU = SEC + ACC viewers
        UF vs Miami = SEC + ACC viewers
        USC vs Clemson = SEC + ACC viewers

        Contrasted by:

        UM vs MSU = B1G vs B1G
        IU vs PU = B1G vs B1G
        Illinois vs NU = B1G vs B1G

        Iowa vs ISU is interconference, but imbalanced

        I have mentioned before the loss of the IU vs UK game, but the teams were matched well enough to make a decent game and created a border state / border conference matchup. If UL can get a national feed game playing UK, so could IU. UC vs tOSU might be imbalanced, but PSU vs Pitt, or PSU vs WVU would offer a broader appeal than tOSU vs Akron.

        Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        And yet the B1G still has more viewers, more money and more fans.
        The idea that the B1G is ‘totally irrelevant’ as he claims is pure homerism.
        Oh, by way, the Michigan/Notre Dame night game this year had more viewers
        than any of the last three National Championship games staring the relevant SEC
        (Auburn, Alabama, Florida). The B1G ten is down, no doubt about it, but if anything
        it proves how resilient the conference is. Even when were in the pits we still
        fill the stadiums. By the time your ESPN contract is up in fifteen years, every B1G
        team will be making 40-50 million apiece. That buys a lot of Urban Meyers and Nick
        Sabans. The B1G will be back.

        Like

        • Ross says:

          I’m a Michigan fan, but where in the world did you get that the game under the lights had more viewers than the last three MNC games? Those games all pulled in the low-mid teens of television ratings, UM-ND got a 4.9 (I believe) on ESPN.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        Here’s an interesting fact. 22 unbeatens, 18 ranked along with 6 1 loss teams and 1 2 loss team.

        The 4 unbeatens not ranked-Iowa St.-Big 12, Texas Tech-Big 12, Kansas St.-Big 12, Houston-CUSA former SWC, something of a pattern. Yet South Carolina is #9, South Florida is #14, Illinois is #22. South Carolina could easily finish 6-6 (they won’t lose to UK or Citadel, but could lose all the rest).

        Like

      • cutter says:

        Are any of these games played outside of the southeast portion of the country? Perhaps the only ones listed I can think of was LSU at West Virginia and Alabama at Penn State. Georgia had to travel all the way from Athens to Atlanta to lose to Boise State. A number of the other games you mention are ACC-SEC matchups with teams within the same state–that’s hardly a long geographic reach.

        I get that Finebaum’s schtick is to be provactive and provide a forum for his carney radio show so that the Alabama and Auburn fans in the state can get on the phone, call into his program and become bad stereotypes of Southern football fans.

        But I think we’re all mindful that these things are all cyclical and individuals teams and conferences go up and down. You don’t have to go too far back to remember the Ron Zook Florida teams or when David Shula was HC at Alabama. Before Nick Saban got to LSU, that program was an afterthought in terms of the national dialogue. Does anyone right now think Tennessee is the same program it was in the late 90s and early 00s right now?

        My advice to Finebaum and the SEC fans is to enjoy the ride because it’ll end in due course. Someone in that conference will have a major violation that will cripple their program or now that the oversigning has been somewhat curbed, teams in that conference may not be able to stockpile defensive linemen to the same degree they recently enjoyed.

        As far as the Big Ten is concerned, the conference has been plagued with instability amongst its major programs. Penn State won’t really get back on track consistently until Paterno leaves, Michigan is slowly working its way out of programs that started during the end of Carr’s tenure there and Ohio State is dealing with its own major problems right now post-Tressel. Once those “traditional” powers get back on line along with Wisconsin and Nebraska, the B10 will be back to its normal competitive level.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      The funniest thing is that his article sort of disproves itself prima facie.

      Here we are on the weekend of the biggest possible matchup of SEC brands (Alabama/Florida; excluding LSU even though it is probably a bigger draw right now than Florida as a stronger contender), and what is Paul Finebaum writing about? Nebraska/Wisconsin.

      Just think about that for a second. Look at the front pages of ESPN, Yahoo’s Rivals, USA Today, Washington Post, NYT/P, etc.

      What’s the college football game of the week? It’s not Alabama/Florida according to any of the major media, instead it’s Nebraska/Wisconsin.

      Could you have imagined that just 2-3 years ago when Alabama/Florida were locking up NCs?

      Like

    • Bamatab says:

      I think from an “outsider” perspective, the real issue that a lot of non B1G folks have with the B1G schedule is that the vast majority of the first 3 or 4 weeks of the schedule is not really relevant. Sure a couple of teams like Penn St and Michigan will play a good out of conference game, but the vast majority of the games are against MAC schools. By starting so late with the conference schedules, there is a 3 to 4 week period throughout the whole B1G that just seems to be basically a bunch of preseason games.

      The preception of the B1G being “irrelevant” from the 1st day of December through the bowl games has now been fixed by the addition of a conference championship game. It may be time to fix that same perception that the B1G faces at the beginning of the season now. The national media has been talking a lot about Bama, LSU, and OU, yet not much is being said about Wisky or Nebraska until this week. I think the main reason for that is because Wisky and Nebraska hasn’t really played in games yet that are of any true relevance.

      Again I’m an SEC guy, so I realize that my viewpoint is scewed, but I don’t think it is only a SEC view, but a national media viewpoint to some extent as well.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        I expect B10 conference games to start moving up earlier soon. This would definitely be true if the B10 ever expands again. Even if they don’t, however, conference games likely will start by week 3 (or 4 at the latest) when the conference slate expands to 9 games.

        BTW, it’s Michigan (against ND) and tOSU that pretty much always play a big name opponent every year. PSU and Nebraska some times do (PSU more often), but not every year.

        Like

        • joe4psu says:

          PSU always plays atleast 1 OOC BCS school. Games against BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt or UVA may not reach your level of expectation, or mine, but these schools are on the schedule for a reason. They are in PSU’s recruiting ground. Heck, even when PSU played Syracuse (scheduled atleast 10 years earlier when Syracuse was coming off back to back 10 win seasons) and Oregon State in the same year they got no recognition. That was the same Oregon State team that beat USC.

          The biggest problem with the scheduling is that 7 home games are necessary (so they say) to pay the bills of the athletic department. When BCS schools will start giving PSU one offs, like Oregon State did, then they can upgrade their schedule. Unfortunately, with 9 conference games the situation becomes worse.

          Like

        • Bo Darville says:

          Purdue – Notre Dame, Minnesota – USC, Northwestern – Boston College, Virginia – Indiana, Iowa – Pitt, Nebraska – Washington …. WHAT?

          Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        It’s entirely valid. The MACrifice has to go.

        Like

        • jj says:

          agree. many of the OOC schedules are a total, complete joke. no more AAs should be allowed. you should have to have an OOC road game. Start conference play in at least the third week.

          Like

      • Mike says:

        Every conference has their schools that graduated from the Bill Snyder school of scheduling.

        Like

    • jj says:

      indeed they should. go somewhere blue. better make sure the busses still have air in the tires from sitting in the aa parking lot all year.

      Like

  32. bullet says:

    Let’s see if I get this right. Looks like noone is talking about 14 team models, which I think make some sense from the stability standpoint. The question would be whether RU/UConn or 2 of USF/TCU/Cincy get left out in a 14 team model.

    http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/30/3410263/big-12-realignment-scenarios.html

    If the Big 12 can decide on 12 (and it should decide immediately on at least 12), it probably should consider locking up WVU before Missouri makes its decision. If Missouri stayed, the Big 12 would get a better team and the SEC would have to choose USF, Cincinnati or TCU for #14. I don’t see the SEC taking Louisville. Cincy and TCU would be stretches as well. And USF would be unpalatable to Florida. Waiting for the SEC is a Beebe like move.

    The Big 12 needs to get its act together and start acting.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Agreed. What I don’t understand, is how OU could have misplayed this whole thing so thoroughly. I get that they wanted to beat on their chests, but they’ve seriously weakened the Big 12’s hand in all of this.

      There was a much stronger chance that the SEC would have taken #13 and waited if OU hadn’t tried to break up the whole Big 12 yet again. Getting Missouri locked in for 6 years and possibly WVU would have been a strong statement, and they probably would have had a better chance at locking in BYU.

      It’s definitely time to do something to strengthen the Big 12. If the SEC doesn’t take a #14, then the Big 12 has to lock in both Missouri and WVU for the next 6 years if they can…

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I’ve got to agree with Chip Brown on this. I think dentists and auto dealers on boards of trustees started making decisions based on egos.

        BTW, attached is A&M’s latest rationale (their reasoning seems to change weekly). And it mentions Rice (in a complementary way-at least halfway complementary).

        http://president.tamu.edu/2011/09/30/faq-about-the-sec-move/

        Like

        • M says:

          One of my favorite hobbies is cutting through lawyery pablum:

          “7. What role, if any, did the Longhorn Network play in this process?

          From the beginning, the process was driven by what best serves the long-term interests of Texas A&M and its student-athletes. Institutional visibility, conference stability and equality among conference members were the most important considerations.”

          This reads like it was a response to a different question.

          “President Loftin resumed internal discussions about conference alignment that led to a telephone call on July 21 to SEC Commissioner Slive to initiative the conversation about joining the SEC.”

          So within days (hours?) of LHN floating the idea of showing high school games, Texas A&M decided to call Slive about leaving the conference. However, this decision was not a hissy fit and they aren’t leaving to get away from Texas.

          “2. What was the process for making the decision to join the SEC?

          The process began in late spring 2010, when the departure of the University of Nebraska for the Big Ten and the University of Colorado to the PAC-10 made the Big 12 Conference considerably less stable.

          At that time, Texas A&M began a strategic and comprehensive analysis of the different conference options, and determined that the SEC provided the best long-term fit in terms of athletics and institutional history and culture, as well as future stability.”

          “8. What about the future of the Big 12?

          President Loftin has said that he believes the Big 12 “has every opportunity to try to move in a direction that will give it stability and a great, bright future.” Texas A&M is working diligently to exit the Big 12 as quickly and amicably as possible, which will allow the Big 12 to recruit a replacement member.”

          So A&M left the Big 12 because of lack of stability, and thinks that the Big 12 has a stable and bright future.

          “like Texas A&M, SEC members have achieved national and international prominence. For example, two universities – Vanderbilt University and the University of Florida – are members, with Texas A&M, in the elite Association of American Universities, which has just 61 members in the United States and Canada.”

          So you’re glad to be among those two AAU members in the SEC and you’re leaving 4 AAU members in the Big 12 to do it.

          “Competing in the nation’s premiere athletic conference will strengthen all intercollegiate sports at Texas A&M, as reflected in the Learfield Sports Directors Cup standings, which are based on a university’s overall athletic program”

          In the Director’s Cup standings from last year, the Pac-10 has 5 schools higher than the SEC’s second place team, including the overall champion. The Big Ten has all schools in the top 50 (only 9 for the SEC). Pro tip: don’t make a claim and then cite something that proves you wrong.

          “Many institutions that are ranked higher than Texas A&M academically compete in smaller athletic conferences. For example, Rice University, one of the country’s most prestigious private institutions, competes in Conference USA.”

          I don’t have any idea what this statement intends to suggest. Many institutions that are ranked higher than A&M are located in major conferences (by AWRU, 11 in the Big Ten, 9 in the Pac-12, 3 in the ACC, 2 in the Big East, 1 in Big 12, and 2 in the SEC). By that measure, more of the institutions ranked higher than A&M are in BCS conferences than compete in smaller conferences. Conversely, many institutions that are ranked lower than A&M compete in the SEC.

          “15. LSU is the only SEC school within 500 miles of College Station.”
          Apparently geography isn’t a strong subject at A&M. Fayetteville, AR is 481 miles away according to Google maps.

          Like

        • curious2 says:

          Re dentists and auto dealers and Fans (bullet)

          If current board members are appointed to decide on university issues, then it’s obvious that includes athletic conference membership.

          Real question is why is an auto dealer appointed to make decisions affecting a university? I really have no knowledge of specifics but it seems questionable to raise the issue primarily in the context of deciding on an athletic conference.

          Are you an A&M or Missouri student or member of their community? If not, then not sure what makes you second guess their decision.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Everyone on this board second guesses everyone’s decisions.

            And its clear egos played a large role is some of the decisions, especially OU’s. The boards were getting pressure not to be a Texas lackey (i.e. make a different decision from Texas to show you are independent even if that decision isn’t necessarily in your university’s best interest). A&M made its decision while its AD was in Europe. From prior statements, Byrne and Castiglione likely favored staying in the Big 12.

            Like

          • Gopher86 says:

            I’d rather have auto dealers and dentists on my board than give conference alignment decisions to the athletic department. Can you imagine if each school could move without some sort of oversight?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Oversight is fine. I would rather those people be reviewing than driving the bus.

            Like

      • frug says:

        What I don’t understand, is how OU could have misplayed this whole thing so thoroughly.

        What happened was Larry Scott. It is pretty clear from both Scott’s and (especially) Boren’s statements that Scott assured Boren he could get the votes to admit OU and OSU without Texas but when it came time he couldn’t whip the presidents into line.

        (Which by the way is the second year in row Scott got burned after badly overestimating his own leverage)

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s an entirely fair reading of the situation.

          My problem is that the result so thoroughly screwed over the Big 12 if it ends up sending Missouri to the SEC.

          There was a much better chance of keeping Missouri in the Big 12 if none of these OU-Pac-12 shenanigans had occurred…

          Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            Really there wasn’t. Despite whatever public comments that have been made to the contrary, the SEC needs/wants to go to 14. If they choose Missouri, it is because they wanted Missouri. If Missouri goes, they likely would’ve gone in either situation.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I agree they would have had a better chance of keeping Mizzou, but I’m not sure it would have been “much” better. The Big XII was never going to have much leverage regardless of the OU-PAC debacle.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Missouri had no options at the time and was very nervous. The SEC was exploring other schools and was at the time a little nervous about the lawsuit issue. The SEC option came up during the wait for OU. If the conference stabilization had come up earlier, that SEC/Missouri connection may never have occurred.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            I have to agree with bullet here though.

            I don’t think the SEC would have had nearly as good a shot at Missouri without the OU to the Pac-12 stuff.

            If OU and Texas had committed to the Big 12 instead of OU making loud noises about the Pac-12, then there’s a far smaller likelihood that Missouri would have shopped itself around.

            As it is, Missouri probably called every conference in the country to gauge interest because of the OU-Pac-12 discussions. That’s what I’m referring to…

            Like

        • curious2 says:

          Re: OK fiasco and assumptions about Boren and Scott (frug)

          The problem as I see it, as a total outsider, is that IF OK and OSU truly wanted into the PAC 12,
          then they should have asked Scott on that basis to give them a heads-up whether they would truly be welcome as schools 13 and 14.

          And Scott should have made clear to OK and OSU that yes: they should apply or they needed to work with UT as a package, without special LHN conditions.

          Somehow, at some point, the whole thing turned into a PR game by OK to use as leverage, and somehow the UT discussions with the PAC about their special LHN concerns got entangled as a package, where OK and OSU’s conference fate was no longer in their hands.

          At that point, the PAC Presidents and Scott said no thanks.

          I do agree with you in that I don’t understand what happened either.

          Like

          • Bob in Houston says:

            The Pac didn’t want to cut up the pie for OU and Ok State — they were net takers. They only wanted Texas on their terms because they’d already given up Tier 3 rights to the league.

            Texas would have increased the pie for everybody, but Texas didn’t want to give up the LHN. And, Texas’s preferred league right now is the B12. It was easy for them to say no, as it was easy for the Pac to say no.

            Like

  33. Eric says:

    Does anyone think the Big 12 will look at UConn and Rutgers themselves. I feel like I’ve heard the Big 12 looking at every other member of the Big East and a lot of western teams. Some of those teams are kind of far out and if they are going far out, it seems they’d at least examine a presence in the northeast (not saying they should take it, just odd that we have rumors with Air Force and Cincinnati, but not the remaining northeastern schools).

    Like

    • bullet says:

      The only thing I’ve read that considers them is the remote possibility 16 team model which basically absorbs the whole Big East. I would think a 14 team with BYU/UL/WVU/RU/UConn would be worth looking at, but I haven’t seen any thoughts of that. It may be that they don’t want another Missouri, always longing to be somewhere else (UConn and RU would jump at ACC/B1G invitations).

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        The only thing I’ve read that considers them is the remote possibility 16-team model which basically absorbs the whole Big East. I would think a 14-team with BYU/UL/WVU/RU/UConn would be worth looking at, but I haven’t seen any thoughts of that.

        Substitute Cincinnati and South Florida for Connecticut and Rutgers, and you might have something. Adding USF puts you in Florida, a recruiting stronghold, and Cincy complements UL and WVU (and it can move some of its bigger conference games to Paul Brown Stadium).

        Like

    • Richard says:

      Yes, if you’re a big proponent of caring about culture (and it seems that as someone who doesn’t want the B10 to expand, you would be), I can’t see how a conference that is now primarily Backcountry with some Midlands schools (stuck in the wintry north with no influence) adding a very Yankee school and a Yankee/Midlands school could possibly be a good idea.

      If the B12 cares about culture, WVU, Louisville, Cincy, and TCU would fit in better than the other alternatives out there.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m not actually arguing it should happen. Just kind of surprised given all the other scenarios out there this hasn’t really been brought up.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I don’t think academics matters much now for the Big 12. The list of “good” academic schools from a research perspective they could obtain is probably limited to Hawaii, UC-Davis, New Mexico, Colorado State, Rutgers, Rice and Tulane. Rutgers is the only one who would have any chance.

          I am surprised that they would look at 16, but apparently are not looking at 14. I doubt 14 pays as much as 12, given the school options, but it would be worth looking at.

          Like

  34. Headline from this new Sporting News article refers to the Big 12, but the main new tidbit is that the Big East presidents are apparently going to be voting on admitting Temple as a full member on Sunday:

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-09-30/big-12-puts-merger-on-hold-awaits-missouris-commitment

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Promoting Temple to the Big East makes more sense than having Villanova try to lift its football program from D-2.

      Temple has the student base (and now more and more are non-commuter) and everything already up and running with its stadium deal, etc. It just makes a lot more sense than trying to lift Villanova where you’re not so sure they’ll be able to get the requisite fan support.

      And Temple’s football team has finally started to look more legitimate these past couple of years as they’ve put more effort into fielding a legitimate team.

      Like

    • joe4psu says:

      Good for Temple. That would bring the # of bb schools to 16 if TCU honors their commitment. Will the BE bb schools accept any other full members? The rumors I’ve heard are that the bb schools don’t want more full members. Does this have anything to do with more BE schools leaving the conference, or TCU joining the B12 instead? What does this mean for Nova fb?

      Like

    • Quiet Storm says:

      Philly.com is reporting that admitting Temple to BE is not the topic for the Sunday meeting. The purpose is to discuss various scenarios involving Air Force and Navy. Navy and Air Force played today in Annapolis and the BE meeting is in Washington so it makes you wonder if officials from both academies are meeting with the presidents this weekend as well. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/owlsinq/Sources-Air-Force-Navy-will-be-hot-topic-over-Temple.html?ref=twitter.com&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

      Like

  35. Quiet Storm says:

    I know the BE is not in a position to be picky at this time but I wonder how the folks on the Blue Line (Villanova) feel about inviting Temple as a full member. Talk about taking on for the team.
    It’s going to take a lot more than Temple to make UConn and Rutgers want to commit. Until the Big 12 and the SEC resolve their membership questions the BE is going to be in limbo.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      This is going to kind of hurt the MAC too. The whole basis of adding UMass was to be #14. Is there someone else in the east looking to move up who could take Temple’s football only place?

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Appalachian State is talking. Illinois State has talked about it forever, but don’t know if they could right now. WKU might move from the Sun Belt. Of course, UMass may end up in Big East.

        The Big East is in a position where being proactive doesn’t help. There’s a good chance UL, WVU and TCU are leaving. Then they may have a different idea of what they want to be. The basketball schools could probably care less about Cincinnati and they definitely don’t want USF and TCU. Temple will always be there. The ACC and B1G won’t come calling. The football schools may find a better place depending on how many are left. And for them, Temple will always be there.

        Your comment about the MAC brings up the following article. It seems BU is nervous-not Baylor, Bradley. Apparently all down the line all the schools are nervous about the impact on their conferences of what the Big 5 or 6 are doing.
        http://www.pjstar.com/sports/x149331439/Wessler-BU-wants-a-chair-when-music-stops

        Like

    • wmtiger says:

      Either of UConn or Rutgers would jump to any other BCS conference if given the opportunity.

      Like

  36. Eric says:

    I was definitely kind of surprised hear that bigger than 12 team leagues have any support in the Big 12 at all (even if it probably is just 1 or 2 schools). I was trying to think how that might be able to work and maybe it could be done kind of like the proposed Mountain West-Conference USA football merger. You could have 8 (assuming Missouri leaves) Big 12 teams keeping their own contract and mostly playing each other (maybe 1 or 2 out of division games). Then you could have a second division (football only, mostly Big East teams), that maintains its own football contract and only plays a couple of games against the 8 Big 12 teams. They’d obviously share the CCG money.

    Don’t see that happening, but I think it’s about the only way bigger than 12 works financially.

    Like

  37. duffman says:

    By the numbers

    B1G @ 12 members

    IL = 12.8 (Illinois + Northwestern)
    PA = 6.4 (Penn State – Pitt, etc)
    OH = 11.5 (Ohio State)
    MI = 9.9 (Michigan + Michigan State)
    IN = 6.5 (Indiana + Purdue)
    WI = 5.7 (Wisconsin)
    MN = 5.3 (Minnesota)
    IA = 3.0 (Iowa, sure ISU is there, but not much)
    NE = 1.8 (Nebraska)

    63 million / 12 schools = ~ 5.25 million people per school

    PAC @ 12 members

    CA = 37.3 (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford)
    WA = 6.7 (Washington + Washington State)
    AZ = 6.4 (AZ + ASU)
    CU = 2.5 (Colorado – AF, CSU, etc)
    OR = 3.8 (Oregon + Oregon State)
    UT = 1.4 (Utah – BYU, etc)

    58 million / 12 schools = ~ 4.83 million people per school

    SEC @ 12 members

    FL = 9.4 (Florida – FSU, Miami, etc)
    GA = 9.7 (UGA – GT??)
    TN = 6.3 (Tennessee + Vandy??)
    AL = 4.8 (Alabama + Auburn)
    SC = 2.3 (South Carolina – Clemson)
    LA = 4.5 (LSU)
    KY = 4.3 (Kentucky – UL??)
    MS = 3.0 (Mississippi + MSU)
    AR = 2.9 (Arkansas)

    47 million / 12 schools = ~ 3.92 million people per school

    ACC @ 12 members

    FL = 9.4 (FSU, Miami – Florida)
    NC = 9.5 (UNC + NCST + Duke + WF)
    VA = 8.0 (VT + UVA)
    MD = 5.8 (Maryland)
    SC = 2.3 (Clemson – South Carolina)
    GA = ?? (GT?? – Georgia)
    MA = 6.5 (Boston College – ??, see note below)

    41 million / 12 schools = ~ 3.42 million people per school

    NOTE: Overweighted Boston College to compensate underweight ACC schools like GT that add value, but are dominated by another school in state)

    Now for the Delany should do nothing group look at the following:

    If SEC adds TAMU and MU
    TAMU = @ 33% of 25.1 M = 8.3 M (double current SEC average)
    TAMU = @ 50% of 25.1 M = 12.5 M (triple current SEC average)
    MO = 6.0 as single school in state (1.5 times current SEC average)

    If PAC adds OU + oSu + UT + TT
    OK = 3.8 (OU + oSu) close to CU and UT numbers, but gets OU “brand”
    TX = (UT + TT) @ 50% = 12.5M (above current PAC average)
    TX = (UT + TT) @ 67% = 16.8M (well above current PAC average)

    If Delany adds MU at 13 and stops, then he has ended the western expansion (UT will not go to the SEC and the SEC will not take oSu) of the SEC, but more importantly he has taken away a state that can actually raise the SEC population significantly. Like it or not, the realignment game is about adding markets and very few are a net gain for the B1G while still maintaining AAU membership. Care to address this Frank?

    Like

    • wmtiger says:

      You missed Syracuse for ACC but they really only deliver a fraction of NY, fan support needs to be taken into consideration… Fan support = higher ratings = higher advertising = higher carriage rates…

      Fan support in the SEC, Big XII & B10 are much stronger than the Pacific & Big East. ACC is a lot of smaller private so I’d assume fan support isn’t near as high.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Based on 2012 lineups-4 year attendance average
        SEC 76,294
        B1G 71,692
        Big 12 58,329 (after losing #2,#4,#6 in attendance to others)
        Pac 12 54,306
        ACC 52,075
        BE 42,627 (includes Pitt and SU)
        MWC 28,288
        CUSA 27,466
        SB 17,198
        MAC 16,289
        WAC 16,035

        Like

    • Richard says:

      Uh, Duff, adding Mizzou would raise the SEC average by 0.14M (assuming TAMU brings 12.5M). Not sure what you consider significant, but that doesn’t seem that significant to me.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        richard, the number for the SEC was about 3.9 million per school, so if MU was around 6 million as a single state school form a high population state (by SEC standards) it would be at the upper end of the spectrum. Tennessee was about the same size as Missouri, and only GA / FL were larger. That meant that 9 schools were smaller, and some by quite a large number. The issue is why let the SEC add a big state if it was a school that fit the B1G profile? If you have already let your competition add TAMU which adds many eyeballs, why let them have mu when you can get MU, and leave the SEC with WVU (much smaller school without AAU status)?

        If media / population matters you want to add schools above your average to your group, and force the other guy to add schools below their average.

        MU > 5.2
        MU > 3.9

        WVU < 5.2
        WVU < 3.9

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Well, I consider FSU an option for the SEC as well. If you take MU off the table, it’s most likely that the SEC will wait out the ACC for FSU rather than settle for WVU. Lots can change in 2 years.

          Like

  38. Boomershine says:

    Anyone watch the Arizona-USC game at all today? I caught a bit of it today and was shocked at the number of empty seats at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Huge sections with not one fan in the seats. I noticed the same thing a few weeks ago when USC played Utah at home. I find it astonishing that the “King” in the Pac-12 can not even draw anything approaching a sell out, even for conference games. There just doesn’t seem to be the same passion for college football in the Pac-12 as there is in the Big Ten and SEC.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      They’re passionate about college football in the Pacific Northwest (where the Ducks make their small stadium sound much louder and Huskies fans still show up despite their team being down right bad for most of the past decade. In Cali, they just don’t care that much.

      Like

  39. jj says:

    Sparty on dudes.

    Like

  40. Richard says:

    You know, I’d really like to see ‘Bama’s or LSU’s defense vs. Wisconsin’s offense (and O-line) or Boise’s offense (with Kellen Moore). (SEC) Speed vs. (Upper Midwest) Brawn and (SEC) Speed vs. Speed (of thought by Kellen Moore).

    Kellen Moore already anticipates and is as accurate as well as an NFL QB. I’d really like to see him play vs. an NFL-quality defense.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Both Wisconsin and Boise look very likely to go undefeated. Let’s hope that ND also wins out (they’d have to beat Stanford @ Stanford). Then the Fiesta bowl hopefully takes ND (after the Rose likely picks Michigan or another B10 team to replace Wiscy & the Sugar takes the LSU/’Bama loser) to match up against the B12 winner.

      That would leave the Sugar to pair Boise against the LSU/’Bama loser while the LSU/’Bama winner faces Wisconsin. It’d be a bit unfair (as both games would be in ‘Nawlins), but the matchups would be mouth-watering.

      Like

  41. jj says:

    Welcome to the big ten huskers.

    Holy crap. Wisconsin looks unbeatable and should flippin roll the leaders division.

    Like

    • @jj – Badgers absolutely steamrolled the Huskers. Wisky has as good of an offense as I’ve seen in the Big Ten in probably a decade. The only ranked team on the rest of their schedule is Illinois (who I have to admit could easily be 2-3 instead of 5-0 at this point).

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Frank, 11/19 in Champaign could be a battle of unbeatens (and determine the divisional title). Heck, 11/12 in Champaign could very well be a battle of unbeatens (biggest obstacle before then is probably PSU at Happy Valley).

        I also noticed that the Illini will be playing in a “Memorial Stadium” in their first 7 games (too bad Nebraska isn’t on the schedule) or else the Illini could very well play their first 2/3rds of the season in a “Memorial Stadium”).

        Then Illinois goes almost a month before playing at home again.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          richard,

          nov 12 Illinois vs Michigan – if both are still undefeated by then

          nov 19 Illinois vs Wisconsin – if both are still undefeated by then

          If Michigan and Wisconsin both beat Illinois, and win the rest, the B1G would have 2 undefeated at seasons end. Since LSU plays Alabama on November 5th, the best the SEC can hope for is 1 undefeated team at seasons end. Since the BCS will be in play at that time you could have 2 undefeated B1G face each other in the B1G CCG, while the best the SEC could do is to put 1 undefeated team in the SEC CCG.

          Not a favorable outcome for Frank and the Illinois, but is this the best outcome for the B1G and their first CCG?

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, the best outcome from Delany’s perspective would be a #6 Michigan against a #2 Wisconsin (or something like that) with both undefeated.

            But, as long as Wisconsin is undefeated and in the national title hunt (#3 or better by that point), the Big Ten CCG will be a big deal…

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Well, if Michigan is still undefeated at that point, I’d expect them to be higher than #6 (the B12 will have at most 1 unbeaten by then, as will the ACC). Of course, I expect Michigan and all the B12 unbeatens to lose at least one game this year. The GTech/Clemson winner may go undefeated over 12 games, though.

            Like

          • wmtiger says:

            TV people want 1 of Ohio State, Penn State vs 1 of Michigan, Nebraska in CCG. Wisky/Illini likely #5 & #6 and MSU/Iowa #7/#8 in terms of ‘ratings’ draws for the conference…

            Wisky looks like a level or two above everyone in the B10 ‘East’, if they can run the table (both OOC & conference slate is pathetic), them being undefeated would be a decent enough of a draw. I could see any of MSU, M or Nebraska winning the B10 ‘West.’ I like MSU there, they don’t play Wisky and got OSU without 4 of their best players.

            Wisky vs MSU? Not what the B10 hoped for.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            wmtiger:

            If Bucky is undefeated and challenging for a national title, as you said, it would be a big enough draw (plenty of folks outside B10 country would be watching). Also don’t underestimate the drawing power of either Illinois or MSU. Though neither are brands, they’re both in big population states and would draw a bunch of neutral eyeballs from their respective states.

            Like

  42. GreatLakeState says:

    Unlike the Buckeye teams of recent years, this Wisconsin team actually instills confidence that they can take on anybody and win -including the ESPN-twins, Alabama and LSU.
    The poise Russell Wilson displayed tonight was simply amazing.

    Like

  43. jj says:

    I just saw Michigan is ranked 12! What kind of Bizzaro world are we living in? They jump 8 for beating MN at home?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Most of the schools ahead from 8 to 16 lost.

      Like

    • cutter says:

      As a Michigan fan, I’ll say take it with a grain of salt because it’s a reflection not only on their record, but the fact that teams ranked ahead of them lost.

      If the Wolverines win the next two games (on the road at Northwestern and at Michigan State), their next opponent after a bye week is Purdue. At 8-0, I’d say UM would have at least earned the #12 ranking because to date, the only opponent of note Michigan has played was Notre Dame.

      Michigan’s final four games include two on the road (at Iowa, at Illinois) and two at home (Nebraska, Ohio State). There’ll certainly be a lot of buzz around UM going into those games, and given what’s happened in the Big Ten, they have a puncher’s shot at winning their divison.

      Like

  44. duffman says:

    From the weekend….

    WEEK 5 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in [bracket]

    B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, [Nebraska], Michigan, Illinois, Michigan State
    5 wins vs 6 losses = 45% : losses to B1G schools = 5 : OOC losses = 1

    SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, [South Carolina], [Florida], Arkansas
    7 wins vs 4 losses = 64% : losses to SEC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 0

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, [TAMU], [Baylor], Texas
    4 wins vs 4 losses = 50% : losses to B12 schools = 3 : OOC losses = 1

    ACC 4/25 = 16% : [Virginia Tech], Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech
    8 wins vs 3 losses = 73% : losses to ACC schools = 3 : OOC losses = 0

    PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
    5 wins vs 5 losses = 50% : losses to PAC schools = 5 : OOC losses = 0

    MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, [TCU]
    2 wins vs 3 losses = 40% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3

    BE 2/25 = 8% : [USF], West Virginia
    4 wins vs 4 losses = 50% : losses to BE schools = 2 : OOC losses = 2

    .
    .
    .
    .

    WEEK 6 beginning – Top 25 and conference alignment – Conference and OOC

    SEC 6/25 = 24% : Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, *South Carolina, *Florida, Auburn
    11 teams : 5 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR
    OFF : Mississippi

    B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Michigan, *Nebraska, Illinois, Michigan State
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 5 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR
    OFF : Wisconsin, Michigan State

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, Texas, KSU, *TAMU
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 5 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR
    OFF : NONE

    ACC 4/25 = 16% : Clemson, Georgia Tech, *Va Tech, FSU
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 4 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR
    OFF : Duke, Virginia

    PAC 3/25 = 12% : Stanford, Oregon, Arizona State
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 5 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR
    OFF : USC, Washington

    MWC 1/25 = 4% : Boise State
    6 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 1 MWC : 0 BE : 1 IND : 3 OTR
    OFF : Colorado State, New Mexico

    BE 1/25 = 4% : West Virginia
    6 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 2 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR
    OFF : Cincinnati, USF

    moved in : Auburn, Kansas State, Arizona State
    dropped out : USF, Baylor, TCU
    * teams losing in previous week

    .
    .
    .
    .

    15 undefeated teams left, 14 max by end of week:

    B12 33% = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, KSU, TT
    Oklahoma vs Texas in week 6
    B1G 20% = Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois
    SEC 13% = LSU, Alabama
    ACC 13% = Clemson, Georgia Tech
    PAC 7% = Stanford
    MWC 7% = Boise State
    CUSA 7% = Houston

    Like

  45. M says:

    Awhile I go I started keeping track of predictions and assertions by this blog and keeping track of whether they turn out to be right or wrong (or still questionable). I posted a list a few months ago, but it needed updating. If I missed anything, let me know so I can add it to my list.

    Right:
    Instability of Big 12
    Desirability of Texas
    Jim Boeheim wasn’t be able to keep Syracuse in the Big East
    Travel doesn’t matter
    Texas A&M was not tied to Texas
    Nebraska is more valuable than Missouri
    Texas has no particularly strong attachment to the Big 12
    strength of the ACC
    Pac-10 schools really want games in LA area
    Pac-10 will not consider BYU
    Pitt is not joining the Big Ten
    The Big Ten had discussions with Texas
    Texas will have trouble getting carriage for LHN
    The Big Ten considered 16
    The Big Ten taking Nebraska would cause the Texas schools to consider leaving
    Nebraska is the one school other than Texas and ND that would be a single addition
    Nothing is more important to realignment than the LHN
    The Big Ten will definitely expand to 12
    The Big East can/should/will add TCU
    Texas A&M did take initiative to leave the Big 12
    There will be a Big Ten hockey conference
    Every member of the Big East would jump to the ACC or Big Ten
    OU and OKST are tied together
    OU was not getting a Pac-X offer without Texas
    By getting all the Pac-12 to put their rights together, Larry Scott stopped a Texas with the LHN from entering
    OU will try to leave the Big 12
    The ACC wil not bring in an unequal revenue sharing plan

    Wrong:
    Conferences did go bigger than 12
    Texas does have an insatiable desire to run their own conference
    Texas really does control the Big 12
    Pac-10 was willing to compromise academically if necessary
    Pac-10 did not do nothing
    Texas threatened to leave the Big 12 in part for leverage
    The Big 12 did sign a very lucrative television contract
    The Pac-10 did consider Texas Tech
    The SEC expanded to take Texas A&M after the Big Ten took Nebraska
    Texas can’t abandon Tech
    Texas A&M never seriously considered joining the Big Ten
    The Pac-12 received a top notch television deal
    Basketball does matter to the ACC at least
    The Big Ten didn’t go east/west with divisions
    The SEC added Texas A&M without other Texas schools
    The Big East did expand and add TCU instead of doing nothing
    BYU did not receive preferential treatment from the BCS
    The expansion landscape did not settle down after summer of ’10
    Texas did attempt to get more games on LHN
    The LHN did have as large of impact as predicted (or more)
    The ACC did expand beyond 12
    TCU did not agree to a football only invite
    The Big 12 is stable (12/07)
    A&M was not bound to Texas by politicians
    Oklahoma did want to be in a different conference than Texas
    The SEC raided the Big 12, instead of being reactive
    ESPN did make a major offer to the Pac-X
    Angry Aggies were enough to let them leave the Big 12
    Oklahoma and OkSt would join the Pac-12, with or without Texas

    ?:
    Big Ten not going bigger than 12
    Rutgers doesn’t deliver New Jersey
    Big 12 would replace schools with BYU, not TCU
    Recruiting is not a major factor in decisions
    Notre Dame would not sacrifice its athletic department for football independence
    Notre Dame would have to react to “seismic” changes
    Notre Dame would prefer Boston College in any conference
    A conference could get a rule change to play a CCG without 12 teams
    The Big Ten was never seriously interested in Missouri
    The Big Ten won’t kill any conferences
    Rutgers and Syracuse are locks for a 16 team Big Ten scenario
    Big Ten might do a multi-stage expansion, starting with Nebraska
    Taking Syracuse would cause the Big East to break up
    Big Ten presidents prefer Rutgers to Syracuse
    16 team Big Ten would be ND, Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, ?
    14 team Big Ten would be Nebraska, Rutgers, Missouri
    The Big East will be a hybrid forever
    Texas and UNC will not join the SEC
    The Big Ten heavily discussed Texas A&M, Maryland, Virginia and Vanderbilt
    Missouri is school 14 if ND is school 13
    The SEC will be a more lucrative conference than the Pac-X
    If two football members leave the Big East, the basketball members will split
    Notre Dame will not put their non-football sports in an all-Catholic league
    Texas will not make more money with the LHN than they would with the BTN
    The Pac-X will survive longer than the Big 12
    The Big Ten is done expanding until Notre Dame changes its mind
    Entrenched interests don’t want super conferences
    At some point, the leaders of ND will care more about its academic reputation than its football team
    The SEC can’t and doesn’t want to tear apart the Big 12
    The Big East won’t kick out ND
    Texas will rue the day it spurned the Texas/Tech/OK/OKSt offer
    Rejecting the Pac-16 offer makes it politically impossible for Texas to leave Tech and Baylor
    The NCAA tournament will expand because it’s overpaid now and wants to keep that level of revenue
    TCU will never get a Big 12 invite
    If BYU doesn’t receive preferential treatment from the BCS, Orrin Hatch will put the BCS in danger
    In consecutive Michigan-OSU games, the first one won’t be NFL style
    Illinois makes it to consecutive bowl games within the next 4 decades
    Texas politicians will keep the Big 12 alive in perpetuity
    The Big East will add TCU and Villanova/Temple
    A Big East network would not get on cable systems
    The MWC will not become an AQ conference
    UCF is the next school in the Big East if Villanova rejects the invite
    The Big East will not add Big 12 remnants
    The Big 12’s treatment of Texas would entice ND to join (network)
    ND will start its own network
    The LHN will save the Big 12
    NBC/Comcast will not become a major sports network
    Comcast will make a bid for the Big East
    BYU should join the Big East
    No professional league will contract
    The SEC can’t rip up its contracts simply because it expands
    BYU would accept a Big 12 invite
    SMU and Rice will not join the Big 12
    VT will not be able to abandon UVA
    NC State/UNC/Duke/ACC school X will not join the SEC, except possibly FSU
    SEC will choose between Missouri and WVU, but Missouri might not leave the Big 12
    If the Big Ten adds ND, they will go to 14 with Rutgers
    A merger preserves all tournament credits, and so is more likely
    The Big East can/should/will invite the service academies for football only

    Like

  46. BigTen Jeff says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/10/02/big.east.ceo.expansion.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a11&eref=sihp

    So the Big East is looking to expand…aggressively!!

    By the way, a topic not often discussed… how does a school get booted from a conference, such as Temple apparently was? Do NCAA violations come in to play? Are there financial settlements in the other direction? Anyone know?

    Like

    • PSUGuy says:

      Is it me or does Marinatto look like a drunk mobster?

      Like

    • Eric says:

      Temple wasn’t actually a full member of the Big East ever. They were invited to play in the football conference, but were never, strictly speaking, a full member of the Big East. That made it much easier to kick out. It would be similar to the ACC or Big 12 inviting someone in for lacrosse so they could have enough members, but without really letting the team in the conference in every other sense. Kicking out a team like that is usually a lot easier.

      Kicking out a full member (as all current 16 team Big East members are), would be much, much more difficult and it would depend on the contracts, but I’d guess would be very expensive or only be possible with massive violations.

      Like

  47. hagenr says:

    Which will fall first? Big East, Big 12, or the Eurozone? Two months ago, even money would have been on the Big 12. However, the events of the past two weeks could indicated it may be the last one standing.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      It’s hard to kill conferences as even 1 member being around lets them survive. The Big East will at least survive as a basketball conference. It’s already going to be down to only 2 of its original football members (at most, Rutgers and West Virginia). The Big 12, worse case scenario would probably survive as a the new Mountain West.

      I’m actually guessing Eurozone.

      Like

    • Jake says:

      You’re going to have to fill me in, as grad school and expansion scuttlebutt don’t leave me with much room for actual news. Did someone else default? Portugal? Italy?

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Not yet, but it’s costing them all more to borrow and so many banks are all tied together (and with far less value than they claim) that it’s difficult to avoid a chain reaction at some point.

        Like

  48. Some updates:

    Big East (ESPN): Expansion candidates discussed by the BE presidents include Navy, Army, Air Force, Temple, Central Florida, and the kicker… SMU.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7051020/presidents-chancellors-give-commissioner-ok-expand-big-east-conference

    Chip Brown on Orangebloods also said that the Big 12 presidents focused almost entirely on Missouri in their meeting today and says that they’re “optimistic” that Mizzou will stay. The interim commissioner will have a statement tomorrow morning.

    Like

    • hangtime79 says:

      Wow! The Big East actually doing something smart. Love the academies, but the interesting is the kicker one, SMU. If you pull SMU and TCU – you have a pretty good hold on the DFW TV market plus give TCU a travel partner. I lived in Dallas for 2 years and in Texas most of my life; yes there a ton college alums who move to DFW but SMU and TCU alums typically don’t leave. They are very concentrated and you can sell the two as a pair helping tie up the DFW market. Don’t know if anyone saw the game on Saturday, but that is a huge rivalry game like OSU – Michigan, UT – TAMU, and OU – oSu, just throw all the records out. If I was looking to build an insurgency into the Texas market as a part of the Big East you could do far worse. I will very curious if it goes any further then just talk.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Southern Methodist could also be a Big East insurance policy for the Metroplex if Texas Christian leaves (though one wonders whether the conference had SMU on its radar before its upset of TCU). If Missouri leaves, the Big 12 will likely be more willing to raid the Big East on a larger scale.

        Like

      • Bob in Houston says:

        Sorry, can’t go with you on SMU and TCU making the Big East relevant in DFW. It’s not the worst idea I’ve ever read, but it’s not going to be that effective, either.

        Like

  49. GreatLakeState says:

    Lions vs. Bears. Monday Night Football
    Sorry FTT, ‘bump’ ‘bump’ ‘bump’…..another one bites the dust!

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Lions 4 – 0
      Vikings 0 – 4

      Maybe there is something to this Mayan calendar thing!

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The Lions have the curse of Bobby Layne. They traded him in the 50s and were never the same. It was noted in the Atlanta papers that the Braves were originally in Boston. Maybe the curse of the Bambino was contagious throughout the city of Boston and a little stuck with the Braves when they moved on to Milwaukee and Atlanta.

        Like

  50. vandiver49 says:

    A proposal for a super conference that was ahead of its time…

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/Super-conference.aspx

    Like

  51. bullet says:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/02/3181207/secs-stability-beckons-mizzou.html

    KC article on Missouri’s decision. Talks about various issues, but not the financial ones. For Missouri, if leaving, the financial risk would be paying a big exit fee, earning slightly more for 4 years and earning less for the 8 after that in order to go someplace they don’t want to go. The financial risk of staying is that if at some point in 10 years or so Texas and OU leave and Missouri doesn’t have a different landing spot available, the Big 12 sinks to a Big East level league in football.

    Like

    • Read The D says:

      If Missouri leaves is it time to pull the plug on the Big12? If Mizzou leaves, according to that flawed but helpful NY Times fan breakdown: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/ the B12 will have lost 3 of its top 5 fan bases in the last year and a half.

      The only schools left that Texas would really want to play are OU and Tech. OU would only be excited about playing Texas and OK State. Is it too far fetched to think that Texas and OU would bring their little brothers and form their own quasi-independent/quasi-conference with schools that will actually draw some national interest?

      Maybe BYU, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida St., TCU, Boise St…

      I would think it would be a scheduling agreement more than anything as ND would really have no interest in playing Tech or Okie Lite or even Boise St. But they could band together and sell some TV rights and make each other some money. Plus some combination of those programs would demand an automatic BCS bid.

      Like

  52. bullet says:

    I saw a claim that the SEC was holding a meeting on Wednesday. Anyone have any verification of that? If true (and I’m not saying it is-I don’t remember the source, but the comment was almost an afterthought in the article), that would indicate that they were going to make a decision about something. That would most likely mean either they are sure they have Missouri or they are going to pick #14 regardless of Missouri’s decision.

    Like

  53. Mike says:

    Key phrase “This action becomes effective after each member institution commits a grant of rights to the Conference for its Tier I and II television rights for at least six years.”

    http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=205307786

    Big 12 Board of Directors Action

    The Big 12 Conference Board of Directors announced adoption of a position to equally distribute all conference related distributable revenue to include Tier I and II football television, men’s basketball television and NCAA men’s basketball tournament revenues. This action becomes effective after each member institution commits a grant of rights to the Conference for its Tier I and II television rights for at least six years.

    It is recognized by the Board that each member is directed by institutional policy relative to pursuing its grant of rights and that process will commence expeditiously at the institutional level.

    The Board is encouraged by the number of institutions indicating interest in the Big 12, which reflects positively on the standing of the Conference within intercollegiate athletics. The Board also looks forward to considering the recommendation of the expansion committee regarding future membership options.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Forget those Big Ten dreams, Missouri. Go to the SEC and liberate yourself from Texas, once and for all.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Vincent,

        What if Missouri is in play to cover Slive going after Maryland? I saw the Terps had 4 competitive cheer titles to go with 2 CFB championships and 2 CBB championships (1 M + 1 W). Yes I kid a bit about cheer, but the general question is serious.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          If Slive is going after Maryland (as a cultural match for the SEC, it’s essentially UNC without southern accents, and isn’t contiguous with any SEC state), all I can say is that he must really be desperate. WVU may not bring many eyeballs, but it’s so much better a fit for the SEC than Maryland would be (especially since many Terrapin teams — men’s soccer, men’s and women’s lacrosse, wrestling to name a few — would have to find indy conference homes because the SEC doesn’t sponsor such sports).

          Like

          • duffman says:

            Vincent,

            I was asking because the Terps specifically wanted the lower exit cap, which would indicate they are at least pondering a jump. The only places to land are the B1G and SEC, and Delany has said they were done (save ND) at 12. You and I have debated MD to the B1G since the beginning, but if Delany spurns them, Slive would pick up Maryland eyeballs and east coast recruiting pipeline.

            I agree about the secondary sports, but MD is AAU, and has a long history with KY in terms of coaches and AD’s. In short, if the B1G did not act now, would it regret it later?

            Like

          • Bob in Houston says:

            duffman: FSU also wanted the lower cap.

            Like

          • John says:

            Maryland is contiguous if SEC takes WVU.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Bob in Houston,

            I am aware of FSU, but the Terps and the “school not named” may be the bigger indicator if the ACC becomes the prey. While the media has given plenty of ink to FSU, I would prefer they give some ink to the other 2!

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Another thing to keep in mind — Delany has said he doesn’t want to “raid” a conference. What if the Big East diminished to a point where it was no longer a viable football conference and Rutgers thus became available? Delany could pick it up, note it needs a partner, and since Connecticut isn’t AAU, work an agreement with the ACC to take Maryland, with UConn taking the Terrapins’ place as ACC #14. The Big Ten gets its two land-grant prizes on the eastern seaboard to complement Penn State, while the ACC gets a basketball “name” to replace Maryland and boost its northeast clout.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            B1G gets RU + MD

            ACC gives up MD but gets Uconn

            Both have moved to 14, and may force ND’s hand

            interesting….

            Like

        • bullet says:

          So that means UK and Maryland become big rivals in competitive cheer. I believe UK has more titles in that than basketball.

          Like

  54. Mike says:

    Wilner (@Wilnerhotline) on Boise


    Sources: Boise State prez Bob Kustra working behind scenes to get BSU into Big 12

    Boise State needs Mizzou to join the SEC and the Big East to remain intact, thus leaving the B12 with more needs and fewer options.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Good luck with that, Boise, especially with WVU, Louisville and possibly others just counting the house waiting to leave the Providence House of Hybrid.

      Like

      • Bob in Houston says:

        The B12’s issue is needing a 10th right away for TV purposes. They can bring in all the BE schools they like, but they won’t be playing right away. That’s why Missouri has to leave for BSU to be a possibility.

        I think it would be a huge mistake to take BSU.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I don’t. Even without much of a recruiting homeland (besides maybe beefy linemen), Boise could very well become another WVU, if not Nebraska. Idaho has fewer people than NE or WV, but Idaho + Montana has more.

          Like

    • wmtiger says:

      What Big East school wouldn’t jump to play in the Big XII?

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Louisville seems to want to keep the BE together (probably because bball actually brings in significantly more money that football there).

        Like

  55. Phil says:

    Anyone else having trouble understanding why the Big East is now willing to travel to Colorado to play Air Force, but isn’t looking to add Boise St which (if they keep their further defections to a minimum) would solidify their BCS bid?

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      I’m having trouble understanding why Air Force, which is in a fine all-sports conference close to its home (the Mountain West), would jeopardize that by leaving for the most vulnerable and poorly-run BCS league as a football-only member.

      Like

      • redwood86 says:

        What makes you think that Air Force is considering the Big East? As we saw with OU and the Pac-12, it takes two to tango.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          You’re probably right that it’s likely so much Big East (oops, BIG EAST) bluster. I could see Navy joining that conference, but as far as BCS for Air Force, it’s at best a dark horse, fallback candidate for the Big 12.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Maybe the Missouri Valley is interested in Air Force. Then they could be with Navy and possibly Army in their conference, giving them more scheduling flexibility.

            Like

      • wmtiger says:

        Because the MWC would accept them back in a heartbeat and before Pitt/Syracuse was raided the Big East was due for a dramatic pay raise.

        Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Run by idiots. That’s a good start.

      Like

    • wmtiger says:

      Yes about Boise but the academies are going to be invited together and Army/Navy might want Air Force to come with them if they join a BCS league…

      Boise (being in Idaho) maybe a Pacific time zone instead of Mountain, time zones are a major factor in realignment and much of the Big East is eastern. Boise State would only get offered football only status.

      Like

  56. mushroomgod says:

    I’m calling it here first…………Wisky and Alabama will play for the NC…OK will lose to either TX or OK State…..Bama will knock off LSU…..Stanford will either lose to Oregon, or Wisky will pass them in the polls…

    So….can Wisky hold up?

    I would have some concerns about Bama’s OL v. Wisky’s DL and LBs…..but I don’t see it as a Florida-OSU style mismatch…

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I didn’t see anything but a few plays of UNL/UW, but I remember UNL talking about re-tooling their defense for the B1G. With the high flying Big 12 offenses you need faster, lighter players. Big 12 defenses don’t do as well against power teams like Wisconsin usually is. I think that’s why Wisconsin has done better vs. SEC than Ohio State. Ohio State has been kind of a hybrid-speed and power so they are quicker than other B1G schools, but don’t get pushed around. When they play SEC schools, they are an SEC-lite and get crushed. Wisconsin uses their strength against speed and has a balance, where they have one type of advantage and the SEC school has different advantages.

      Now Alabama does have more of a power type offense than most of the SEC.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Well, in the game, it was the Husker secondary looking like crap. Russell Wilson can fling it, and Nick Toon is an NFL-level WR, but can the rest of the UW receiving corp shake free from the Tide secondary, or will Bucky have to grind for scores after each ‘Bama touchdown?

        Like

    • zeek says:

      Wisconsin’s offense looks vastly superior to either of Ohio State’s title losing teams. The question as you point out is whether Wisconsin’s defense would be able to match up…

      Like

    • duffman says:

      shroom,

      I can see Wisky but not sure I see Bama on the other side. As Alan is aware I have been on the side of the Tigers from the beginning. I can see your matchup, but would not eliminate LSU in the process. I might think of it as Wisky vs winner of BAMA vs LSU. I think Stanford could go undefeated but Wisky would get in before them. OU still has to play 4 undefeated teams in the B12, and I am betting one of them gets the win. The oSu game is @ Stillwater, so I am saying that is where OU stumbles.

      Win or lose, I think the Badgers hold up better against BAMA or LSU than some of the past B1G vs SEC games. If Wisconsin and Michigan meet undefeated in the CCG it might give enough a boost in EoY polls to put the Badgers #1 and BAMA/LSU winner #2. if such a situation plays out the bigger question would be where would the game rank in viewers in all BCS games? You want at least a 15 rating, and closer to 20 would benefit the B1G the most.

      Like

      • Peter says:

        I wouldn’t rule out that LSU slips up somewhere or the LSU/Alabama winner loses the CCG to an East team. Wisconsin has a more favorable schedule (benefiting hugely from the mess in Columbus) and stands a good chance of going undefeated. They destroyed this Michigan team last year @ Ann Arbor and destroyed Nebraska on Saturday, so would be a heavy favorite over either in their CCG.

        The SEC would have to fratricide massively to not have one side of the MNC game. Like LSU/Alabama both bring a loss into that game and then the winner somehow loses in the CCG. The SEC East is BAD this year and South Carolina losing was the last straw for any hopes there.

        I don’t think either Texas or Oklahoma State is MNC material but odds are one of them will beat Oklahoma. I think both will lose somewhere else.

        Stanford and Boise are both invisible and pretty much need to hope that they are the last undefeateds left standing. Boise due to being Boise and Stanford due to playing in what is really a quite bad & anonymous Pac-12 this year. Oregon losing to LSU while USC is on its semi-death-penalty tour was BAD.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I thought noone would go undefeated, but the SEC and B1G are weaker in the middle than anticipated. Wisconsin and LSU/Alabama have a chance. Clemson has also faced their two biggest challenges but may have to face Georgia Tech twice, who hasn’t faced the meat of their schedule yet. The 5 Big 12 unbeatens have a lot of challenges ahead. MI, IL, UH will probably drop a game or games along the way. I don’t see Boise being high enough in the polls unless UGA goes 10-2. Stanford will stumble somewhere-there always seem to be some Pac upsets.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I originally thought that there’d only be one undefeated this year; LSU or Alabama. Wisconsin has always historically dropped a game or two that they shouldn’t (even the Wisconsin Rose Bowl winners the past few decades are guilty of this; last year’s loss to Michigan State is the same).

            But this Wisconsin team looks different. They’re that much more talented than most in the past and that ’99 Wisconsin team got 2 losses in its first 4 games. This one has the momentum to just wreck everyone in the Big Ten, especially with the bad taste of last year’s Rose Bowl loss and with Russell Wilson looking determined to make the most of his 13-14 games there and with Ohio State having its worst year in over a decade.

            The Big 12 looks too deep for anyone to go undefeated. OU faces at least 3 teams that have a good shot of beating them even though they’re favored in every game.

            Stanford is a good team, but as you said there’s always upsets in the Pac-12. Hard to believe that they beat Oregon and everyone else left on the schedule. Pac-12 South winner if it’s ASU might get them as well if they fix their mistakes.

            You never know, but at this point it looks like we’re not going to have one of those crazy years like the 2-loss LSU year. The SEC East and Big Ten have too little depth for that to happen (SEC East is having another one of its worst years and Big Ten outside of Wisconsin is shaky).

            Like

        • Richard says:

          Bucky still has to play Sparty @ MSU. Likely their biggest challenge of the year and a significantly bigger test than the Huskers @ Madison.

          Like

    • Richard says:

      Yeah, I’d definitely be concerned about Wiscy’s defense vs. Nick Saban with time to gameplan and his stable of athletes. Bucky will score, but can they score enough?

      Like

  57. bullet says:

    Saw this article linked on hornfans from a Texan going to school at Alabama. Also explains some of the UT and state of Texas motivation for protecting Tech-a lot of Texans are going to SEC schools-LSU, Alabama and Georgia are on a lot of lists for kids in Texas. Aggies will also have to learn that SEC fans don’t consider Texas part of the south.

    http://cw.ua.edu/2011/10/03/sweet-home-ala-texas/

    Like

  58. duffman says:

    Frank,

    You passed 2 Million !! CONGRATS

    Like

  59. EZCUSE says:

    For all the talk of money, most of the conference switches lately have been about stability. So, regardless of whether Missouri thinks it makes more sense in the Big XII or suspects it to be slightly more stable than it was…. Missouri should move to the SEC.

    And that will be that. Only with the Big XII on firmer ground, it will not be leaving any school behind. Anyone jumping to the Big XII will be making a reasonable decision.

    Like

  60. zeek says:

    RT @ClayTravisBGID SEC ADs meet Wednesday. RT @GabeDeArmond: Missouri has announced a Board of Curators meeting for Tuesday 2 hours ago

    I wouldn’t put quite as much stock into this though with respect to the SEC ADs. They’ve made it fairly clear in the past that the SEC is running this entirely through Slive and the Presidents. Other than some idle speculation from coaches and ADs, I don’t think a meeting of ADs means anything.

    The SEC has been extremely quiet about all of this; unless we see the SEC presidents converge on Birmingham or Atlanta, there’s nothing doing… (of course, we’ll find that out in hindsight).

    Like

    • bullet says:

      And everything indicates that nothing will happen on Tuesday or Wednesday on expansion. Missouri will either commit to the Big 12 and the 12-3 will have to get all their paperwork together before doing anything else, or Missouri will announce they are exploring their options. Then it will be a while until Missouri joins the SEC or re-commits to Big 12. And that would further delay Big 12 expansion. The Big East can’t really do anything until the candidates have some idea what they are joining.

      WVU fans seem to still be convinced an SEC invite is imminent, but I doubt that is true.

      Like

  61. Mike says:

    Opinion: Oklahoma and the SEC

    http://blog.newsok.com/ou/2011/10/03/ou-and-sec-why-not-again/


    I never heard anyone openly campaign for the Pac-12. I’ve heard very few happy with the current Big 12 (9) structure. Some like the Big Ten, but that doesn’t seem even remotely reasonable. Neither party has discussed that, to my knowledge.

    David Boren has said repeatedly the SEC invited OU last summer, during the first shifting of conference tectonic plates. And I still do not really understand why that invite wasn’t accepted. Yeah, yeah … I know … lower academics and higher competition were frowned upon. We’ll get to that soon enough.

    If Boren had it over again, would he take it? I guess not, considering he probably could have had it in the past couple of weeks, as well.

    What I’m saying is, pretty much everyone I know or have heard from here – whether it be reporters or fans – is interested in OU in the SEC.

    [snip]

    It’s admirable that Boren wants to get OU in the Pac-12, to boost its academic reputation. But it’s also sort of like me presuming I could date and/or marry a Hollywood starlet like Minka Kelly. Those gals go for Derek Jeter or Ryan Gosling, not Travis Haney. You’ve got to punch your weight in life. Boren keeps trying to fight up a class or three. Keeps getting knocked on his tail, too.

    If Missouri goes to the SEC – and that’s seriously 50-50 right now from those I’ve spoken with – that would give the SEC three AAU schools (MU, Florida, Vandy). If OU (and Oklahoma State) went, it would be about seventh or eighth in the 16-team league in terms of academics. Middle of the road. That’s what OU is, academically. Nothing wrong with it. Very good school. Just not great. That’s the story, generally, for a lot of the others in the SEC. OU is no different than Arkansas or Auburn or South Carolina or Tennessee, in my mind. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    [snip]

    We heard from enough sources through the Pac-12 flirtation this fall to know the league wasn’t exactly going out of its way to welcome OU, academically. That’s because it isn’t as good of a fit as, say, the SEC would be. It’s a good fit both ways, whether Boren would choose to admit that or not. The SEC is already better academically than the remaining nine Big 12 schools – and it’s not close. Adding Louisville or West Virginia is going to help that? Please.

    I guess I’m still waiting for the first compelling reason why OU’s fans won’t get what they want, by going to the SEC. I haven’t heard it yet, and I’m not holding my breath. Boren doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to change his platform midstream. It’s Pac-12 or bust, and OU is currently lingering in bust territory. His failure to seriously consider the SEC will probably cost OU money (the new TV deal would result in a loss, something he calls a “donation for stability”) and the school will find itself in a weaker Big 12, both athletically and academically.

    Why, is my question, when there’s a better option available?

    Like

    • Richard says:

      I’m pretty certain that the SEC wouldn’t want OK State tagging along with OU, and OU likely would be under tremendous pressure to not sell out their little brother so long as both could reside in a BCS conference, and the B12 will remain a BCS conference so long as OU and Texas (or just OU, IMHO) remain. So, in short, it’s not completely OU’s decision.

      Like

  62. PSUGuy says:

    I’m sorry, but no mater how many AAU schools the SEC gets it simply will never be considered an “academic” conference.

    Much has been made about stability in the conference realignment discussions (and be honest, stability is really what drove PSU to the B1G, Miami and FSU to the ACC, and the Big8/SWC to merge in the first place) and part of stability is “institutional fit”. Schools that think alike and act accordingly being in the same conference builds and maintains stability.

    The SEC is, and has always been, an athletics conference where off the field association is largely irrelevant. It gets together to play the same schools, make some money for its athletic departments then goes back to (for the most part) being middling universities (which still puts them decently ranked in the grand scheme of things) once the games are over.

    Oklahoma, right or wrong, does not see itself as that and obviously wants to associate itself with a conference that see’s iteself as more than an athletic conference…and I think Oklahoma’s continued interest in the Pac, and barring that a Big12 with changed rules, shows that more than not.

    Like

  63. duffman says:

    October 16th is fast approaching, anybody care to guess who the top 10 will be?

    Like

  64. GreatLakeState says:

    I’m really pessimistic (and growing increasingly apathetic) about ND joining the B1G, which makes not grabbing OU insane. Yes, I know, they won’t go anywhere without OSU. I just don’t buy it.
    If it came down to going to the SEC with State or the B1G without them, I believe they would choose the B1G. Even if OU doesn’t deliver TX, it would give the B1G one last football powerhouse the school needs to compete with the SEC. OU/Missouri or OU/Maryland.
    Leaving two spots open until ND and TX choose. If neither comes, throw the AAU groupies a bone with Rutgers.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The problem is that Oklahoma isn’t like Nebraska. They’re built entirely on their connection to Texas through UT (tradition, recruiting, etc.). They probably want to be in the same conference as Texas or Oklahoma State so as not to have to schedule both in the non-conference annually. And the little brother thing is probably real for them. I don’t think they want to leave OSU in a bad spot if something goes wrong…

      Like

    • Richard says:

      I’m pretty certain the SEC doesn’t want OK State either. OU’s choice is the B12 with OkSt (& Texas) or going to either the B10 or SEC by themselves. It seems likely that the first option is their preferred choice.

      Like

      • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

        If the SEC adds 4 old “Big 12” teams, then they simply move Alabama and Auburn to the eastern division and call it a day. I’m not sure they wouldn’t take OU and OkSt if you put a gun to their head.

        That’s the thing though. No one is putting a gun to anybody’s head. The “move to 16-team super conferences” is optional.

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I just don’t see football as the be all and end all for the BIG. I think the presidents think the same way.

      The BIG already has 4 of the top 10 football schools…..the problem with the BIG is not that there aren’t enough tier 1 schools—the problem is that IU, Purdue, and Minnehaha suck so bad…that there’s not enough middle of the road schools and too many dead weights…and that’s coming from an IU fan.

      MO is a better fit and better addition than OK, even setting aside the OSU issue. Bigger and better school, gepgraphically better, more instant rivalries, better culturally. And the BIG preisidents won’t take BOTH OK and MO, because of academic dilution. Heck, they won’t even take MO because of academic dilution (although that’s pure stupidity on their part).

      Add MO and Rutgers, two middle of the road football schools. Add ND for everything but football. It’s a no-brainer………..

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        Gonna have to disagree with your notion about the Big Ten being really top heavy and really bottom heavy. This year? Yes, that’s the case. It’s a pretty down year. Most years, though, it has a solid middle class.

        Pick a year, any year, over the past 10-15. It is very common to see Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Northwestern in the Top 25. Even Illinois and Purdue have won the conference in the past decade, and the Illini have a fair chance of doing it again this year.

        The real problem is that the SEC’s unprecedented run of championships makes every other league look much worse than they really are. We hear all the time that the Big East stinks for many reasons, the most significant yet most understated reason (by the media, at least) being that it lacks any true national powers. We hear exaggerations about horrible the ACC is because of its BCS bowl record and lack of national title contenders. We hear how bad the Big Ten is based largely on its bowl record vs. the SEC (whom the Big Ten plays more than any other league). We hear how much the Pac-12 stinks because USC is down, because one of its best teams (Oregon) loses to SEC opponents, and because tradition over the past 40 years says Stanford is supposed to play more like Duke & therefore the whole league must not be very good. We hear how much the Big 12 stinks because the only teams who are supposed to play well are Texas and Oklahoma, and when other B12 teams beat SEC teams, it’s because those SEC teams are “down.”

        Like

        • greg says:

          @Michael

          I think the B12 is the only conference that I haven’t heard as “down” this year. Everyone just likes to talk negatively. College football performance gets better every year, which seems to be why so few teams now stand out. I think the real reason is that lower tier FBS and the top FCS teams continue to creep closer to the AQ leagues.

          Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            @Greg,

            I agree that the lower tier FBS and top FCS teams have been creeping closer to the AQ leagues over the past several years, but the AQ leagues’ acquisition of Utah and TCU, combined with what I’ll call, for lack of a better term, the “semi-AQ” status of BYU, have allowed the AQ leagues to reassert some considerable distance. Boise State will soon be the only program outside the AQ leagues that routinely makes appearances in the Top 25. For programs like Houston, SMU, UCF, ECU, Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada, and Navy, it is still an enormous cause for celebration if they get into the Top 25. Contrast that with any AQ school other besides traditional cupcakes (like Duke, Indiana, Vandy), and it’s easy to see how much distance there is between the AQ’s and non-AQ’s both on the field and financially.

            For further illustration, take a look at this week’s standings for each non-AQ conference. After five weeks of football, most teams’ wins have required defeats over other leagues’ teams, meaning that non-AQ teams haven’t yet been able to turn a 1-3 record into an 8-4 season by beating up weak conference opponents.

            The Mountain West is pulling its own weight. Out of 8 teams, 6 have a record of 3-2 or better. One (TCU) will leave next year, but 5 of 7 with winning records is still pretty good. No one is .500. Granted, New Mexico has last 85 of its past 10 games, but they’re an anomaly.

            The MAC is doing all right. 6 of 13 teams have winning records. 7 have losing records, including one winless team. None are .500.

            Then there’s a major dropoff. The Sun Belt has 3 teams out of 10 with a winning record, one at .500, and not just 1, but 2 teams who are winless.

            C-USA has 3 teams out of 12 with a winning record and only one at .500. One team is 0-for-4.

            And then there’s the WAC. Everyone has won a game, but Hawaii’s the only team which has won more than it’s lost so far, and even they are just 3-2. The MWC’s other new 2012 members, Fresno and Nevada, are a combined 3-6.
            ———————————————————–
            I agree with your other points. Everyone likes to talk negatively, which is just sad. Just look at Paul Finebaum’s unsolicited bashing of the Big Ten in si.com. College football performance overall is much better than it used to be, but closer results and upsets make it easy for people to conclude that it’s worse.

            I haven’t heard anyone say the Big 12 is weak this particular year, but it’s still regarded as a weak league. Most people presume K-State, Iowa State, and Baylor won’t be able to be a consistent winner and that they’ll eventually become cellar dwellars just like Kansas. It’s as though their success will prove to be a short-lived fluke in the long run.

            It all goes back to the overhype of the SEC. Announcers say things like, “Alabama is basically an NFL team,” and viewers believe it. The mantra from ESPN and CBS has gotten old, so old in fact that I find myself rooting for the SEC to lose every non-conference matchup just because I want the announcers and the “we’re-God’s-gift-to-college-football” SEC fans to shut the blank up.

            Like

  65. Richard says:

    There are now 7 B10 schools in the top 25 of women’s volleyball (compared to 6 Pac12 schools).

    PSU and Nebraska have always been volleyball powers, but how much is the elevation of programs like Illinois (currently #1 in the country and undefeated) and Purdue (the only other undefeated team before they were beaten by the Illini this weekend) due to the BTN?

    From 2004-2007 (2004 being the first year I can get poll data), the Illini never finished in the top 25 at season’s end.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I would say a part of it though is just due to the overall push by schools to emphasize success in athletics. i.e. Director’s Cup competitiveness.

      I mean, it’s somewhat like Northwestern Women’s Lacrosse. Could anyone have predicted that becoming one of the two greatest programs in a sport dominated by East Coast powers in just a decade?

      Other schools are following suit like Florida and Michigan but coaching is always going to play a big part in that.

      I just think that schools realize more now than ever how important overall athletics success is for revenue and non-revenue sports and for the brands of the schools themselves. Not that they didn’t realize that before, but schools are always looking to build their brand and now trying to craft national powers out of nothing in sports other than football/basketball.

      The Pac-10/12 was always out in front of this and the Director’s Cup top 10s from the 90s would typically feature at least a half of the Pac-10 at the time.

      Now, everyone’s chasing it. Alumni like when their schools win NCs, regardless of the sport (of course football NCs are always way bigger than anything else but still), so all schools are trying to actually compete in a lot of sports that they weren’t trying anywhere near as hard in just a decade or so ago…

      Like

    • @Richard – I definitely think we’re starting to see the positive recruiting effects of the BTN for Olympic sports. Last year, I saw a number of quotes from Pac-12 coaches bemoaning how much Big Ten schools were getting recruiting traction on the West Coast because of the TV coverage on the BTN. I just hope it eventually carries over to improving Big Ten baseball over the coming years.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Much tougher, most likely. The PTN starting doesn’t help (and would hurt in West-Coast-dominated Olympic sports as well . . .like volleyball).

        The biggest thing, though, is that baseball players can realistically dream of making a career out playing baseball, so I expect the schools where that is more conductive (which would still be warm weather schools) to keep their edge (so Coastal Carolina likely would still do better than any B10 school even though no one sees them play in the regular season). In the Olympic sports, almost all student-athletes will be doing something else after graduation, so a stage with more exposure is more enticing.

        Like

      • Mike says:

        If the Big Ten gets their baseball rules aligned with the rest of DI baseball then I think we’ll see an improvement. Schools like Costal Carolina may have the weather, but I have to imagine that the strength training, nutrition, and overall facilities advantage of the Big Ten could win out given the proper commitment.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        The BIG is just at such a huge disadvantage when it comes to the warm weather sports like baseball, softball, track, soccer et al…..The emphasis is going to the “gym sports” that the BIG can dominate such as wrestling, volleyball. swimming. The BIG ought to dominate in bball but there are other factors involved there…..

        Like

        • Purduemoe says:

          I agree about baseball and softball, but doesn’t IU have one of the most storied soccer programs in the country?

          Like

          • Richard says:

            . . . and yes, IU is a traditional soccer power, while currently, UConn is the only undefeated, untied team in the country (and also #1) and Akron (located in balmy NE Ohio) had only 2 losses all of last season on their way to winning the NCAA title (not an abberation either; in 2009, the Zips were undefeated the whole year but lost in the national title game on penalty kicks).

            Of the current top 25 soccer teams, 9 schools are above the Mason-Dixon line & Ohio river, 6 are in MD-DC-VA-NC, and 2 of them are in SEC territory (and one of the 2 is Louisville).

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            To add to Richard’s comments…the other soccer power house (besides Indiana) is the warm weather bastion of…Saint Louis.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          Soccer is as much a warm-weather sport as football. Just ask the Europeans. At least the Germans take a long winter break; the Brits keep playing through snow and sleet with no winter break.

          Like

  66. XOVERX says:

    The key to realignment continues to be Missouri.

    If Missouri leaves the B12, will Texas and OU simply add BYU and (eventually) 3 other mid-majors, and act like nothing really happened at all?

    Or will Texas exit the B12, with or without OU (which seems to be glued to OSU)?

    If Texas exits it would likely be to the B1G or, a distant second, the SEC.

    I think the PAC move is dead, due to the B1G apparently being the most flexible regarding the LHN, but who knows?

    Like

  67. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Breaking news – this seasons’ Allstate Sugar Bowl and the Allstate BCS Championship game will not be played in the Louisiana Superdome.

    These games will now take place in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome.

    http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2011/10/new_orleans_saints_sells_super.html

    Like

  68. M says:

    A fun read:

    http://www.offtackleempire.com/2011/10/3/2467671/re-alignment-and-the-cola-wars

    The Big 12 schools as different soft drinks. Iowa State=Fresca

    Like

  69. More on the Big East from the Boston Globe: SMU, UCF, Navy and Temple are primary targets, with Air Force still being discussed but looking less likely:

    http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/extras/colleges_blog/2011/10/_a_day_after_ho.html

    My semi-educated opinion: Air Force is the Big 12’s #2 target after BYU.

    It’s also interesting to see two separate reports referring to SMU but nothing about the BE being interested in Houston at all.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Air Force is valuable, has good fan support and is elite academically, but is it a BCS caliber football program (at least if the BCS conference is something other than a stripped down Big East)? And would that be good for Air Force? As bad as CSU has been in football lately, I would go for them over Air Force if I HAD to have a Colorado school for the Big 12. CSU would get better in a BCS conference. Air Force recruits are not determined by their conference affiliation.

      You hear enough now how “weak” the Big 12 is when it isn’t based on fact (not so much on this board as you have a lot of informed people). Can you imagine if the Big 12 invited service academies?

      SMU is interesting. Private basketball schools picking other privates? Simply wanting minimal travel for minor sports? Thinking you can add the 5th and 6th schools in a market and get a critical mass? TCU still mad about UH ignoring the other 3 and going off to CUSA? Its odd.

      Like

      • @bullet – The two things that I see with SMU are that it’s highly rated academically (consistently in the top 60 or so in the US News rankings) and the BE might be better off doubling up on the DFW area than having more dispersed interest in separate markets. I’m not saying that’s wise (as I see Houston as pretty similar to Louisville and Cincinnati from an institutional standpoint), but that could be what the BE is thinking.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Wouldn’t you take ECU and UCF before SMU?

          I mean, you’d get more traction from USF-UCF in central Florida (Tampa v. Orlando) with their huge class sizes eventually becoming sizeable alumni bases going forward and pretty good attendance numbers as well that should help.

          As for ECU, I think the upside to having a football-crazy program in a basketball state as important as NC is interesting. ECU seems like it could become a decently big time program if it was in the BIg East. Maybe like a Virginia Tech someday; you might scoff at that, but I think the potential is really there.

          Like

    • John says:

      And this (“Air Force is Big 12’s #2 target) is why Mizzou can NOT stay…

      Like

  70. Penn State Danny says:

    I am trying to follow Frank’s maxim about thinking like a conference commisioner and/or a university president.

    If the Big 12 has indeed locked in the tier 1/tier 2 TV deals and upped the exit fees, then Missouri has to stay.

    If Missouri stays, the SEC has to ask WVU to join. Maybe “has to” is too strong of a phrase but the SEC isn’t going to stay at 13 and if the exit fees of the ACC and Big 12 are too high for teams to leave, WVU is the only choice left.

    If this happens, then the BE is basically dead. Louisville and Cincy (and TCU) can wait for the Big 12 and Rutgers and UConn can wait for the ACC but those conferences have the “pull” in this situation.

    All the speculation about who the BE will add is fun but ultimately irrelevant: it just doesn’t matter. The conference will continue to be 6 out of 6 and still keep it’s BCS bid because a) no one wants to give it to the MWC and b) no one wants the SEC to get 3 bids on an annual basis

    Like

    • duffman says:

      PSD,

      ACC only has a 20 million exit fee. which is only 4 million more than it is now. 3 schools kept this low including Maryland, Florida State, and and “school not named”. Just as the B1G would not take MU or wVU, I have a feeling the SEC will not as well. I still feel the adds in SU and Pitt were just to replace a team or 2 the ACC feels it will lose. The B1G, PAC, and SEC all have full fledged brands, and the ACC does not. At best FSU / VT / Clemson may stay in a position of power long enough to wind up with firm football roots, but it is hard to assure now.

      Franks maxim or not, I still say if you want something, chances are an evenly matched opponent will want the same thing. If the B1G wants ND, then the SEC will not want WVU, even if the fans of the B1G wish it so. I said on here early on the SEC would go for a serious academic add, and they got it in TAMU. Why would Slive land an academic gem to turn around and accept one who is not. This seems counter intuitive, and not in the long term best interest of the SEC. If the B1G stayed at 11 for as long as it did, why would we assume the SEC could not do the very same?

      Like

    • cutter says:

      PSD:

      There’s already discussion taking place about adding another BCS bowl (Cotton) and allowing conferences to have three BCS bowl participants instead of the maiximum of two that are now allowed. While the SEC and Big Ten might be the biggest beneficiaries of that deal, I could also see the Big XII benefitting from such a change as well.

      When you look at major conference realighment over the last two decades, you see anywhere from one to four teams moving from one location to another. The biggest movers have been the ACC (from 9 to 12 in 2003 and from 12 to 14 this year) and the Big XII when it incorporated four teams to go from 8 to 12 conference members in 1996. The Big East had to restock in 2003 and could well be facing te same situation this year.

      On the other end of the spectrum, the Big Ten has added one team each of the two occasions it’s expanded. Until the addition of Texas A&M, the SEC has had only one expansion in the last 20 years when it added South Carolina and Arkansas to become the first 12-team conference.

      What will be interesting to see is once Missouri does make a decision (and they appear to be the current lynchpin regarding this issue) is what the Big XII does afterward. The conference will have either eight or nine members, so the minimum move would be either one or two additional members to get to ten. If their conference expansion committee thinks its opportune to go to 12 or even 16 members, we’ll go from a minor conference change to one of the major ones spanning 3 to even 8 additional teams. To be frank, I don’t think the latter course is very likely. In the end, and depending on what Mizzou plans on doing, the Big XII will probably be adding 1 to 4 teams.

      If it’s the latter case and 3 or 4 teams are added, the decision has to be made not only which teams but where they come from. Brigham Young seems an obvious choice at this point, but would the Big XII then look at the state of Texas (TCU, SMU, Houston) or the Mountain West (AFA, Boise State) or the Big East? Recent history has shown that the MWC, C-USA, the Big East and the Big XII have been “feeder” conferences for the others.

      The SEC will have an interesting situation on their hands if Missouri opts to stay in the Big XII. The ACC hasn’t played the role of “feeder” conference over the last 20 years, although it seems fairly clear that the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse were preemptive actions on their part in case the SEC came sniffing around their neighborhood. As you point out, West Virginia would be a possible choice for #14, but for all the reasons that have been mentioned before (small population, etc.), I don’t know if WVU would be ideal (or even as good as Missouri).

      The SEC could stay at 13 for awhile, but with the two division setup, I have to imagine the scheduling would be difficult (unlike the Big Ten when it had eleven teams and no divisions prior to the addition of Nebraska). I have to imagined they’d need to make a move to 14 teams.

      We’ll see. Twenty years ago before the Big East got into football and not counting the Southwest Conference, the major college football conferences had 47 teams in them (ACC with 9, Big 8, Big Ten, SEC with 10, Pac 10). With the dissolution of the SWC and with the BE bcoming the sixth major/BCS conference, there are now around 67 teams in those six conference with perhaps upwards to 72 in them when the latest round of realigment is completed.

      ACC: 14
      Big Ten: 12
      Pac 12: 12
      SEC: 13 (Likely to become 14)
      Big XII: 9 (Likely to become at least 10)
      Big East: 7 (Likely to become at least 10)

      Total: 67 (Likely to become at least 72)

      That’s quite a change in two decades. It also makes me wonder why people get into such an uproar regarding conference expansion. A number of programs that were on no one’s radar as football teams (such as Utah, Texas Christian, Louisville, USF, Cincinnati, Baylor, Texas Tech) have been “moved up” over the last twenty years into stronger conferenes (although one can make an argument about the relative strength of the Big East). Even the move of Boise State from the WAC to the Mountain West could be seen as a move up. By and large, I’d say conference expansion along with the growth of the sport on television has benefitted a lot more teams than not.

      Like

      • joe4psu says:

        I keep wondering when the brilliant minds in the press will pick up on this. Instead they report, over and over, that the world is coming to an end with 4 conferences made up of 64 schools. Facts be danged. Add to this the fact that much of the leading edge realignment news has come from blogs or Scout and Rivals type websites and I have come to the conclusion that reporters want to cover games and nothing else. Anything that requires more effort than watching games is too much trouble.

        Expansion? They don’t seem to see it as important until some major news broken elsewhere forces them to write something. Oversigning? They seem happy to let someone else do the investigative work while they watch the games. NCAA infractions? Outside of Yahoo!, and I don’t consider them the traditional press, who has been breaking stories?

        I started to notice the lack of effort shortly after the whole expansion topic blew up last year and when I broke down and started following some twitter accounts I was shocked. The sports writers from major outlets seem very shallow, self congratulatory and way too much like sheep to me. I have whittled together a short list of accounts to try and catch any actual news that comes out but it is painful to wallow through. I guess I should just wait for the stories to come out, regardless of who publishes them.

        Rant over. Just wanted to say I agree with cutter. (sheepishly looks at screen and debates clicking “Post Comment”. What the heck. I’m as self-absorbed and arrogant as any sportswriter.)

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          I fully agree with your comments. As someone who used to be a sportswriter (but am now on the news/copy desk side of the business), it amazes me how shallow and ignorant so many of my one-time cohorts are, mistakenly believing the many facets that go into conference membership and now differently each conference perceives itself.

          Like

    • Jefferson says:

      If Mizzou doesn’t leave for the SEC, I agree with you that WVU is left as the most probable choice. This leaves the Big East dead. This most likely causes Notre Dame to look elsewhere, and there are two choices, ACC and B1G. I see ND to the B1G, but this creates a large incentive for Texas to join the B1G as well. Hence, the breakup of the Big XII.

      Ergo, Mizzou should join the SEC if invited.

      Like

  71. Mike says:

    On Mizzou

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185178/whether-to-trust-big-12-is-at.html

    John Kadlec has spent most of the past 64 years earning his nickname of Mr. Mizzou.

    You will not find a man more steeped in the school’s athletic history, and his love of it, nor one more appreciative of the people he has met along a path traced from the Big Six to the Big Seven to the Big Eight, and finally, the Big 12 Conference.

    On Monday, Kadlec sat in an auditorium preparing to listen to Missouri football coach Gary Pinkel. But the ever-present smile fell from Kadlec’s face when he was asked if he trusted the people managing the future of the fractured Big 12, either in the league office or at the individual schools.

    “Not any more, not any more,” Kadlec said with a mournful shake of his head. “I don’t even trust us.”

    [snip]

    Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton, a member of the Big 12’s expansion committee as well as chairman of the conference’s Board of Directors, has walked a tightrope along a path defined by the uneven ground between what is good for the Big 12 and what is best for Mizzou.

    Neinas said Monday that Deaton recused himself, on the advice of a university attorney, from part of Sunday’s discussions. But when asked to identify what those discussions were, Neinas declined.

    There appear to be three possible decisions that could come out of the curators meeting:

    •Deaton and other MU officials become officially empowered to take part in negotiations with other conferences, which would seem to indicate Mizzou is serious about leaving the Big 12.

    •Withholding that power, which would seem to indicate the curators are serious about staying in the Big 12.

    •Or Missouri decides to fast-track the process with an announcement that it has received interest in joining another league — most likely the SEC — and decides to withdraw from the Big 12.

    The third option seems the most unlikely at this point.

    Like

    • footballnut says:

      Deaton recused himself from certain portions of the meeting last Sunday that covered certain TV revenue sharing decisions, according to Columbia Tribune sources. As for the meeting today, 5 curators were apointed by the govenor, who is proc SEC move. BUT, the chairman of the board is from KC, and he has concerns about KC losing the Big 12 basketball tourney and other MU/KU games. Most give the move a 50-50 chance. Football coack Pinkle and AD Mike Alden want to move. MU president Deaton? Hard to read, but a good, fair man, and a well respected academic in Missouri, in the Big 12, and in the AAU. I give it 50-50 chance also. What’s the tipping point? Money is my guess. Can they afford the move, and will it be truley advantagoeus in the long run? Run the numbers and vote… news @ 6!

      Like

  72. Mike says:

    Mr SEC: Missouri or WVU

    http://www.mrsec.com/2011/10/mizzouri-meets-rumors-swirl-about-wvu/


    Speaking to a well-positioned source inside an SEC institution today, we have been told — again — that the SEC did not deny WVU’s entry into the league when the school reached out to conference brass last month. But they weren’t bearhugged as Texas A&M was, either.

    WVU remains a fallback choice due to the small population and small number of cable households inside its state borders. Academics are also an issue with some presidents in the league.

    However, if Missouri stays in the Big 12, the rest of the landscape stabilizes, and the SEC faces multiple years as a 13-school league… then WVU might become a lot more attractive.

    If that occurs, expect the SEC to tout WVU’s fan passion, similar culture, and its close proximity to Pittsburgh and other major metro areas as part of its spin.

    For now — from what we’re hearing — it’s Missouri or bust. And the SEC isn’t sweating Mizzou’s decision. West Virginia remains a deep fallback option. The only other school that our sources continue to mention as a possibility is Florida State.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      My question would be, what happens if Missouri stays in the Big 12 and the Big 12 goes after WVU?

      Would the SEC be forced to move then? I mean, yes they could go 6+ years at 13 members, but if both Missouri and WVU are locked into the Big 12 with the rights agreement and FSU isn’t budging that’ll be an uncomfortable scenario for them…

      Like

  73. Penn State Danny says:

    I agree with Mike. I don’t see any way that Missouri and WVU both end up in the same conference.

    From Mr. SEC regarding WVU:

    If that occurs, expect the SEC to tout WVU’s fan passion, similar culture, and its close proximity to Pittsburgh and other major metro areas as part of its spin.

    This spin has the added benefit of being true. I still think WVU is a good fit for the SEC and I didn’t believe the rumors of outright rejection that occurred last month.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Only way I could see it is if the SEC makes a serious play for Florida State, which I agree is unlikely, but not impossible.

      The Big 12 schools are going to sign away their rights if Missouri stays and West Virginia isn’t going to turn down a Big 12 invite if the SEC hasn’t invited them and I don’t see the Big 12 ignoring West Virginia if they are open. That means if the SEC were actually going for Florida State, it would have to do it soon to be sure Missouri or West Virginia was still open later.

      Like

  74. Hank says:

    http://www.wsbt.com/sports/wsbt-notre-dame-hockey-irish-appear-headed-to-hockey-east-20111002,0,556063.story

    Notre Dame hockey: Irish appear headed to Hockey East

    SOUTH BEND – Expect a formal announcement of Notre Dame’s hockey affiliation this Wednesday.

    Irish coach Jeff Jackson said on Media Day last week that Notre Dame was essentially down to two choices — Hockey East or the National Collegiate Hockey Conference – and it appears the Irish are headed to Hockey East.

    Topics
    Notre Dame Fighting Irish
    The options shrunk after the National Collegiate Hockey Conference announced Sunday that it will launch its inaugural season in 2013-14 as an eight-team conference.

    Currently in Hockey East are Boston College, Boston University, Providence, University of Massachusetts, U-Mass-Lowell, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Northeastern and Merrimack.

    The eight institutions in the new Division I men’s National Collegiate Hockey Conference are Colorado College, University of Denver, Miami University, University of Minnesota Duluth, University of Nebraska Omaha, University of North Dakota, St. Cloud State University and Western Michigan University. St. Cloud State and Western Michigan accepted invitations to join the Conference on Sept. 22 with the others joining last summer.

    Tom Nevala, Notre Dame’s senior associate athletic director in charge of hockey, said Notre Dame would likely have an announcement Wednesday considering its future conference affiliation.

    “At this point we have finished our investigation as to what our future affiliation is going to be,” Nevala said prior to Notre Dame’s exhibition game Sunday evening at the Joyce Center. “I think it’s prudent at this point to wait until we have all the parties involved together, all the formalities out of the way and then the appropriate announcement will be made. I look for that probably Wednesday of this week.”

    Last week, Jackson said the Irish could not go wrong with either conference and that television would be a key factor.

    Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      ND has a press conference scheduled this afternoon where it is expected to announce it is joining Hockey East. Bowling Green has accepted their WCHA invite per http://www.bgsufalcons.com/news/2011/10/4/HOCKEY_1004112909.aspx

      Hockey East is expected to be in the market for team #12. This should bring the western shake-up to a full-blown conference Armageddon when Hockey East will raid either the AHA (for UConn) or more likely the ECHA (for RPI). It still seems unlikely that UAH will find a home in all this, but I am always hopeful.

      Like

  75. Mike says:

    The start? via Clay Travis @claytravisbgid

    PowerMizzou’s @GabeDeArmond tells @3hl1045 he expects Missouri board to give authority to Pres. to explore conference affiliation today.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Unlike most, I don’t think it would be a bad move to stay in the Big 12 at all. I don’t see dying and if it does, doubt Missouri would be left out of all alternatives. That said, things have come too far and if an offer is made and the president has the authority, Missouri will move as the fans would revolt like A&M fans did when they didn’t get into the SEC last year.

      Like

  76. Mike says:

    Granted the last three schools in the Big 12 to do this didn’t move.

    Like

  77. M says:

    At least one WVU fan thinks they’re going to the SEC:
    http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=519441

    Like

  78. bobo the feted says:

    Bye Bye MIZZOU, it was nice knowing you.

    Like

  79. Yahtzee says:

    MIZ – SECede!!!

    Deaton has stepped down as chair of B12 Board of Directors. Finally.

    Like

  80. bobo the feted says:

    Can’t blame Mizzou, the Big12 stuff was becoming rediculous. So far UT has given up only one concession – the axing of Dan Beebe, and has basically give up nothing. The tier1 and tier2 equal sharing was already agreed upon before this summer. Everything else is still there – UT will still enjoy inordinate influence and exposure. Now the Big12 (8) conference schedule will look like this TX/TTU/OU/oSu/KU/KSt/ISU/Baylor. No matter how you slice it that sucks aside from the Red River Rivalry. If I was the Big East I would take the time Mizzou is spending on “exploring their conference affiliation” to lock down their schools and to take as many legitimate C-USA teams as possible, hell I would agree to BYU and Boise State as football only at this point. It’s now an official death match between the Big East and the Big12.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      The Big 12 still has one clear advantage — no Providence or Seton Hall to get in the way of sane decision-making. It still makes more sense, economically and competitively, for West Virginia, Louisville, et al to go to the Big 12 than for Iowa State and Kansas to go to the Big East.

      Like

      • joe4psu says:

        I agree, the Big 12 still has the advantage over BE. Any BE school, or any non-AQ school, offered a Big 12 invite would be hard pressed to pass it up.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      Tier 1 and 2 was going to be shared more equally, but not completely equally. Texas has also gotten ESPN to lay off airing high school games (not highlights, but the games themselves). The only things they haven’t given in on are a) 3rd tier rights (something SEC teams hold onto anyway) and b) the one conference game. B is a bit of an issue, but the school it’s against has to sign off on it (getting extra money) and the rest of the Big 12 isn’t losing out money because of it (since ESPN is buying games Fox already purchased).

      I’m not saying they necessarily shouldn’t go to the SEC, but that’s because the SEC is desirable, not because of anything Texas has or hasn’t done.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      Does it sound like he’s talking to his fans like they’re ignorant simpletons (when it came to OOC scheduling), or is it just me?

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Also, his fans don’t want to play academic peers or a top brand like tOSU (even if it is away)? They’d rather play MTSU? Huh? I just can’t imagine an NU fan wanting to try to get out of a game @ the Swamp vs. Florida or not excited about playing Stanford (or even BC) and wanting to play NIU instead.

        Like

  81. bobo the feted says:

    @eric it was my understanding that the University Presidents had voted and agreed on 75% equal/ 25% appearance based split, but in the last meeting before the realignment polooza the AD’s had agreed on 100% equal tier 1 and tier 2 rights, however that motion was never voted on by the Presidents.

    I’m a UT alum so I’m glad they’re getting LHN, but you have to admit that LHN powered by ESPN and potentially nationally aired as a Tier 3 agreement is very different from the SEC – where the Tier 3 rights (while substantial and are in the 5-7 million range) are all produced by regional sports networks and are meant to target specific fanbases. Also I have a strong feeling that after going to 14 the SEC will likely pool all tier 3 rights and use extra TV inventory and start their own real SEC Network.

    The wave of the future in CFB is clearly larger super conferences with 14 or more schools, equal distribution of tier1,2,3 and a conference network. Don’t know what Deloss is thinking, I’m pretty sure a PAC-16 Texas network will eventually make more money and have easier carriage than the LHN will.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      You are probably right. I knew about the 75%/25%, but never heard of the 100% until it recently passed.

      I actually don’t really think the LHN is that different than the SEC regional deals. If Texas was in the SEC, it would have been created and no one would have complained. It only became a big issue in my opinion because it arrived at the same time schools were looking to leave the Big 12. A&M fans wanted to leave last year and that wouldn’t have changed if the LHN hadn’t existed. Missouri is leaving for stability more than anything. The LHN is a convenient excuse, but I think it’s more of a red hearing than anything that is actually causing instability.

      For the future, we’ll see. The present trend is toward conference networks for sure.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        If the LHN was actually tier 3 with a single nonconference FB game and a few MBB there would not be a problem with it within the Big 12. As bobo said I really don’t see a long term upside to it (other than the claim to have their own network). It will be as big an impediment to joining the B1G as it was for the Pac. Meanwhile it is helping turn the Big 12 into the Big WAC.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I agree it’s coverage is limited, but that’s also why I think it’s more of a red hearing than an actual cause of teams moving. Maybe the presidents care more about it than I suspect though.

          Like

  82. Brian says:

    Related to all the talk of changing demographics, I ran across this story today:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-03/migration-states-sunbelt/50647142/1

    Basically, it says the southern migration has stopped (for now, at least) according to the IRS.

    Like

  83. Eric says:

    So lets say Missouri leaves for the SEC. That leaves 8 in the Big 12. Where does it go? 8? 9? 10? 12? West Virginia is now definitely open and they are probably the best open team besides maybe BYU, but they are also pretty far east of the rest. I think West Virginia might be taken with Louisville as 9 and 10 or as part of a 12 team conference, but it’s hard to picture them by themselves without anyone else from the east.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Definitely back up to 10; probably less likely to go to 12 since it’d mean adding 4 instead of 3 (if Mizzou stayed).

      They’ll probably target BYU and Louisville. If BYU says no, probably Louisville and WVU.

      Like

  84. Mike says:

    Gabe DeArmond: Mizzou not long for the Big 12.

    http://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1274465

    That’s a long-winded way of saying that Missouri doesn’t get this far down this road without knowing there is a place to land. Some will insist that place is a last-minute back-door deal with the Big Ten. I don’t buy that. I believe Missouri has had for some time in its hip pocket a handshake deal that if they chose to leave the Big 12, they would be welcomed with open arms in the SEC. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and I’d better start looking for employment.

    Like

  85. duffman says:

    Poll for Frank the Tank readers, should Missouri?

    a) Stay in the B12
    b) Move to the B1G
    c) Move to the SEC
    d) Move to the PAC
    e) Who cares, just not the B1G

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Go to the SEC. Both sides should want it.

      Big Ten wants to wait at 12 for ND.

      SEC needs a #14 and there’s no indication that FSU or Va Tech is or wants to be available. Missouri is the best school on the block; gets them good sized markets and presence in the Midwest. Better than being 3rd in Pittsburgh with WVU, and better academics with Mizzou.

      Pac makes no sense for either side. Only a Pac-16 with Texas + 3 is going to happen if it ever does.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        One other thing, this is Missouri’s best chance right now to get a spot at the one of the 3 most stable conferences.

        If they don’t take this, and the SEC goes to WVU. Then there’s no guarantee that they ever get a spot in the Big Ten or SEC later down the road. Big Ten could wait decades on ND. SEC might not go to 16 if it wants to keep 2 divisions and can’t get an ACC school. Pac-16 might happen with OU/OSU/Texas/Tech.

        If you’re Missouri, you’re making a 100 year decision to make sure you don’t get left behind later on…

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Just recall that over the past 2 years, all the talk has been about Missouri getting stuck in the Big East or Big 12 remnants or MWC or whatever.

          If they look at this as a 100 year decision, it’s obvious that the only choice is the SEC.

          Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      B1G shows little interest.
      Unknown Pac interest, little MO interest in Pac
      SEC and MO seem to have mutual interest. That seems the best move.

      Or…you could pull an OU and try to leverage that interest…oh wait, never mind.

      Like

    • M says:

      I don’t think b or d are actually options. If Missouri goes to the SEC, it would be for stability and money. The SEC is definitely more stable, but I think that the money could go either way. In terms of attendance, I don’t know whether their fan(s?) would prefer lower profile games against nearby rivals or higher profile games against random SEC teams. For television money, the Big 12 has the advantage of a sooner contract expiration and fewer teams to split, but it has fewer ratings driving programs. Once the exit penalty is figured in, I’m guessing that the Big 12 would be more lucrative for the next 5-10 years.

      I think stability probably carries the day. The Big 12 is one Texas decision to give up the LHN from breaking up entirely. Also, that Vanderbilt guy said that if anyone wants to leave the SEC they’re free to do so. If the B1G comes calling in couple years, they won’t have suffered anything.

      Like

      • bobo the feted says:

        The real question now is with the SEC at 14, ACC is at 14, would this reopen a PAC invite for OU/oSu? A

        And what happens to the Big East and does a Big12(now at 8) stay together, fall apart and expand to 10,12, 16?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          It doesn’t change anything though right?

          The Pac-12 knew that the SEC was at 13 with A&M and looking for 14 in either Missouri or WVU. Wilner’s best sources (mostly from the Pac-12) were saying that Missouri was a lock to be the SEC’s #14; thus, this scenario has been at the forefront of the Pac-12’s strategic planning. The Pac-12 also knew that the ACC was at 14 before making its decision.

          Nothing here changes the Pac-12’s decision to wait for Texas +3 in a move to a Pac-16 if Texas is ever willing to give up the LHN. I think the academics and even the media market people in the Pac-12 were hesitant to invite OU/OSU. OU easily pays for itself, but it’d have to pay for both OU/OSU in terms of 1/7th of the overall revenue; the academics are a whole different animal…

          And let’s not forget the South California exposure problem. Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, etc. want as many games in South California as they can get; games in Oklahoma don’t do anything for them…

          Like

    • vp19 says:

      SEC for Missouri; iIt’s the only option that makes sense for long-term stability. In the Big 12, you’re still a Texas vassal; even if the Big Ten was expanding, there’s no assurance it wants Mizzou. (And the Pac is no longer a factor.)

      The question is now, what does the Big 12 do once Missouri leaves? Does it only grow to 10 to accede to Texas’ desire to have no title game (and perhaps so UT can placate Notre Dame by “saving” the Big East, though it’s sort of ironic ND would want to protect a football conference it has no desire to join)? Or do the other conference schools overrule Texas, for once, and expand to 12, 14 or even 16 members (the last option is not likely) by raiding the Big East and possibly causing its demise as a BCS league? (For Big East schools, becoming a Texas vassal is better than being a Providence vassal.) And if the Big East dies as a BCS conference (it would still exist for basketball and other sports), what happens to its automatic berth?

      This multi-player chess game begins to get interesting.

      Like

      • @vp19 – I think “less is more” will end up being the mantra for the Big 12. I’d be extremely surprised if they go beyond 10 members. Outside of maybe BYU, none of the realistic expansion candidates really add enough revenue (or else they would’ve been snapped up by the Big Ten, SEC or ACC by now). My feeling is that BYU is effectively the one lock for the Big 12 with a tossup between Louisville or TCU being school #10. I felt a year ago that TCU had no chance of ever getting into the Big 12, but the circumstances have changed so much that the brand equity that the school offers at this point may override its duplicative Texas market location.

        Like

    • @duffman – If Mizzou has a B1G invite, then it should go to the B1G. Assuming that’s not the case, though, Missouri’s president should accept an SEC invite even if he has to walk from Columbia to Birmingham to seal the deal.

      Like

  86. M says:

    Does anyone else find it amusing that amid the constant “midwest is a demographic time bomb” talk, the SEC is adding Missouri?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Demographics problems are well overrated especially when you consider that the housing bust’s repercussions with respect to population migration will probably be around for at least 10 years considering that we’re likely to have another recession well before we hit full employment again and another housing boom cycle can’t really start until housing debt is brought back down again (a lot of predictions put California/Florida housing prices not reaching the 2005-2006 peaks until 2030 or later). Considering that all these things are also tied in with the Boomers and how they’re reaching the end of their working timespans, we’re going to see big changes in the demographics outlooks for the country.

      Obviously, the southwest will still have the Latino immigration/higher birth rate to count on, but among whites/blacks, relatively the different parts of the country will be more stable compared to one another than they were the past 2-3 decades.

      Like

    • bobo the feted says:

      Mizzou is kinda in a weird spot, they’re Midwestern in North and towards the Illinois border but Southern the closer you get to Arkansas and Tennessee. Besides StL and KC are still decent TV markets, just as Detroit, Cincinatti Pittsburgh are despite the population shift to the South.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        By far, most Missouri residents live in the more “Midwestern” portion of the state, in greater Kansas City or greater St. Louis. Those in the rural southern third/half of the state don’t add up to any people. Besides, everything I’ve ever heard about the University of Missouri, including the opinion of a friend who graduated from Mizzou, is that the school is basically every bit as Midwestern in culture as Purdue or U of Illinois.

        It would be a weird fit for them. If they’ve felt odd among Texas schools’ fans, just imagine what it will be like around rabid Alabama, Florida, and LSU fans.

        Like

    • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

      No, ESPN can spin it anyway they want…they have the monopoly.

      “The state of Missouri announced to Joe Schad that they are no longer a midwestern state…they are now a southeastern state. Rumors of them being northern were lies put out by DeLoss Dodds and Chip Brown.”

      Like

  87. hangtime79 says:

    *slamming my head against the wall*

    So let’s see – the only four schools that have yet to go sneaking around the damn conference are:
    KU, KSU, Baylor,and ISU. Personally I would just assume the four (my Baylor included) just leave this stain and head for the Big East. Yea, they are morons over there – but damn its better then facing the guillotine every year based on whether or not OU and UT want to be in the conference that year. Every other school has sought leverage, left, or flirted – heavy petting with another conference. Take the four out and you kinda blow the thing up. No more BCS credits as the conference goes below 6. Just absolutely sick of this.

    Like

    • M says:

      Strictly speaking, Baylor tried to wheedle a Pac-12 invitation last summer and the forgotten four had at least preliminary talks with the Big East.

      The problem with the Big East is that it’s not particularly distinguishable from the Big 12 without Texas and OU.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I seem to recall Baylor looking to be part of the original P16 plan, and certainly Starr has tried to use political leverage. The other 3 have had talks with the BE. There are no clean hands left.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        To the both of you, I wouldn’t really hold talks with the Big East against those schools. Honestly, that’s just making sure you have a contingency plan if you’re entirely screwed over.

        Heck, TCU has talked with the MWC (initiated by the MWC, but still worth pointing out)…

        Not really sure it’s dirtying their hands to be making sure they have a conference if the Big 12 goes belly up; it’s not as if they’re looking to trade up like OU and Missouri are/were…

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Based on Hangtime saying he’d rather they just up and leave for the BE, I don’t think you can discount talks with the BE. The talks may have started as a fallback plan, but it more and more looks like a sideways move trading money for stability.

          Plus, there were rumors of KU talking with the P12.

          Everyone in the B12 has talked to other AQ conferences. The bottom 4 just don’t have the desirability to sustain talks with the ACC, SEC, B10 or P12. They would if they could.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            He’s a fan though.

            No school is going to choose a Big East (especially after just having lost Syracuse/Pitt) over a Big 12 with Texas/OU.

            There’s no chance a conference with Texas/OU doesn’t have BCS or some road to a playoff or whatever in the future. That conference will always be an AQ conference with 2 of the top 10 brands. The Big East on the other hand…

            Like

          • hangtime79 says:

            Everyone wants “stability” yet its everyone of the schools with the wandering eye that seems to be generating the instability versus who just wants to not be left holding the bag.

            Trade-Up (Wandering eye):
            Nebraska – Big 10
            Mizzou – Big 10, SEC
            Colorado – Pac 12
            TTU – Pac 12 (2x)
            TAMU – Pac 12, SEC (2x)
            oSu – Pac 12 (2x)
            OU – Pac 12 (2x)
            UT – Pac 12

            Survival:
            Baylor
            ISU
            KU
            KSU

            This is what frustrates me the most. The 8 above can do whatever they want, but the four below are just cannon fodder (including Baylor). Do you honestly believe any of those four schools wants the Big 12 to blow up. Heck no. Do we have any choice in the matter. Heck no, because only those above the line have any say.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            You are assuming UT and OU are guaranteed to stay in the B12 longterm. I wouldn’t bet my future on that.

            I’m not saying the BE is a step up, or even an equal right now, but stability has value and the BE may actually be more stable right now.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            The Big East just lost Syracuse and Pitt and the football schools might split off.

            Furthermore, I’d bet that the Big 12 is much more likely to have an AQ in the next contract than the Big East.

            If the Big East loses its AQ, it’s no different from C-USA or MWC; then again, most of the schools in the Big East were in C-USA at some point in the past couple of years…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Hangtime,

            You conveniently forgot to mention Baylor looking to join the P16 before CO got the spot, and KU potentially looking to join it this time around.

            ISU has nobody but the BE and non-AQs to talk with since the B10 doesn’t want them. KSU would only get to ride KU’s coattails. KU has to hope decent academics and a great MBB program opens a slot somewhere (BE is a safe bet, but they had P16 hopes and maybe B10 dreams). Baylor is clinging to UT like a barnacle.

            Like

          • M says:

            I would put Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in the “survival” camp. They’re in a better position than the other 4, but they’re not driving any of the action.

            Like

    • zeek says:

      I think the blame lies with OU and Missouri equally. Attempting to blow up the conference just 12 months after Texas tried to blow up the conference is a big part of why Missouri is likely on its way out (fool me once, fool me twice, etc.), but of course, we can’t forget Missouri’s attempts to get the Big Ten’s 12th spot that helped launch this whole mess.

      Regardless, I still maintain that if OU hadn’t gone on its Pac-14 attempt last month, the Big 12 would have been much more likely to keep Missouri.

      The fact that the Big 12 has proven continuously to be so fragile is why Missouri’s on its way to the SEC. OU proved that by showing that it and Texas (the previous year) have landing spots elsewhere (Pac-16) and aren’t afraid to blow up the conference to get their way.

      Missouri doesn’t want to be left behind like Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, and Iowa State, so they’re going to grab a spot on the train as they can.

      It’s hard not to sympathize though with the 4 other schools though, since they’ve done nothing but sit there and offer concessions to Texas/OU/A&M for the most part and try to protect the conference.

      I just don’t see how the conference survives in the longer term though as an equal to the others without Missouri. Not that it’s that important, but media markets wise, all that’s going to be left is Texas and Oklahoma… In the long run, the T1/T2 deals will probably get blown away by the other conferences…

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        It’s easy for some of us to have no sympathy for Baylor. They stabbed us in the back last round.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s fair; I understand where Rice/TCU fans (since we have those around here) are coming from on that issue.

          Like

        • hangtime79 says:

          We may live in the Baylor bubble, but its not the anti-reality field that surrounds B/CS. As you may recall TAMU signed on for a 15 year commitment last year, which Lofitin has been back-pedaling and changing the narrative on for the last two weeks so fast he could be up 45 in Dallas by now. Let’s be real honest. Aggieland didn’t want to get the legislature involved last year so it punted. When it saw the LHN as a possible reason to break it bolted. Loftin had no intention of staying in the conference and told a reporter for national television as such. The LHN was never the problem, it was timing. So no Baylor stab did not stab TAMU in the back. TAMU has never been able to handle being the little brother to UT and is now going to try to make it in the Big City. Of course, the SEC will now get to experience what we all have had to deal with for the last 100 years, the whining and conspiracy theories to keep poor TAMU down. Gag me.

          Like

        • hangtime79 says:

          As for TCU and we have had discussions about this in the past Loki. TCU hadn’t won a damn thing in the SWC. Was the Big 8 going to take the entire SWC, no. It would have probably been only two if they had had their way, but it was four. Got a problem with it – deal with UT and TAMU. Of course now if the Big 12 doesn’t blow up and the Big East gets raided, where do you think TCU is going to end up? Hopefully its the Big 12, but if its not its back to the MWC.

          Like

        • Playoffs Now says:

          It’s easy for some of us to have no sympathy for Baylor. They stabbed us in the back last round.

          No they didn’t. Baylor wasn’t in a position to demand that other schools be added to the B12, they were lucky just to get in themselves. Sorry that the B8 didn’t offer Rice, but it is ridiculous to blame Baylor for doing what any other school would have in that position.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        P16 talks -> CO leaving -> loyalty demands -> NE leaving -> LHN -> TAMU leaving -> P16 talks again -> P14 talks -> MO possibly leaving

        There were also several side branches, like various schools talking with B10, SEC, ACC, etc, but I stuck to the main line leading to MO possibly leaving.

        UT has been an integral part of this from the start. If they had said from the start that they had no interest in anything but the B12 (and meant it) this would have stopped long ago. Instead, they have talked to everybody. Since UT is the linchpin for the B12, everybody else had to respond by seeking stability elsewhere if possible. The constant power games haven’t helped either.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s entirely fair. I don’t disagree with that timeline at all. And there are no heroes in all of this. Just a lot of people looking out for what they think is their self-interest.

          And a lot of the people who are looking out for the self-interest of these institutions probably have little clue what’s actually best for these institutions and the athletes involved; there’s also the panic element. Everyone’s thinking 4×16 “must get a spot” mentality because that’s what the media has been shoving down our throats for 2 years.

          This is entirely despite the fact that the Big Ten looks extremely unlikely to budge off 12 and the Pac-12 only wants to go to 16 with Texas (but Texas wants the LHN over a Pac-16 Texas) so the 4×16 is pretty much highly improbable.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Nobody really knows what is best for these schools. The BE could grow and become a true power conference in football in 30 years or it could disappear. The B12 could supplant the SEC as the top dog or disintegrate when UT goes independent.

            Who knows what the money will be like for different schools in 50 years?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I have to quibble with that logic, Brian. Otherwise, you’d go down the path of saying “Nobody really knows what is best for these schools. The CUSA could grow and become a true power conference in football in 30 years or it could disappear, so TAMU should have spurned the SEC for CUSA.”

            We know the drawing power, brands, and budgets of the schools in the various conferences, and in college football, the hierarchy changes very, very slowly. Almost all the power programs that were considered kings in the early ’70’s are still considered kings (all except Washington and maybe Tennessee) + a few FL schools got added to the club.

            Like

        • Mike says:

          @Brian – shouldn’t you include Big Ten expansion -> MO’s wandering eye -> P16 talks

          Like

          • Brian says:

            You could make that argument, but I don’t believe they are connected. I think Larry Scott would have done the exact same thing without Delany saying a word.

            I don’t think MO’s dalliance with the B10 had much impact either. The blogs ate it up, but I don’t think it meant much to the powers beyond the MO governor. I don’t see how it would influence the P10 to do something, especially since the P16 offer never included MO.

            Like

          • Eric says:

            I think Missouri talking to the Big Ten was a big deal. With both Missouri and Colorado wanting out, the rest of the conference had to worry about their TV deals (biggest markets outside of Texas) and that lead to thinking about the PAC-16 and for Nebraska, about joining the Big Ten.

            Like

        • Playoffs Now says:

          Your analysis may conclude that the world is flat, but it isn’t. UTx didn’t start the looking at other conferences, but when MO, CO, and NE did, UTx responded by saying they preferred to keep the B12 but would explore all options. (Ever heard of due diligence?) In the end UTx decided to keep the B12.

          A year later aTm decided to leave, and in response UTx said they’d prefer to keep the B12 but would explore all options. Then OU threatened to leave. UTx again responded with “We prefer to keep the B12, but will continue to explore our options. Ultimately UTx decided to try and keep the B12 and the P12 blew off the Okie schools.

          A school acts, UTx then responds and evaluates the changing landscape. See a pattern yet?

          And each time, the school who could kill the B12 with ease and choose any conference it wants, has chosen to keep the B12 and rebuild it. Yet somehow you conclude it is UTx that is killing the B12?

          Like

          • Mike says:

            Didn’t Dodds and Scott hatch the whole P16 in January of 2010? That was a couple of weeks after the Big Ten announcement, but before Mizzou’s wandering eyes.

            http://www.statesman.com/sports/9-things-and-1-crazy-prediction-1820115.html

            Like

          • M says:

            No conference will take Texas and everyone in their conference that has had any option has left. The remainder have tried to leave but been unsuccessful.

            Texas has chosen to keep the Big 12 alive because it’s the only conference whose members (at least those who have no place to go) will tolerate Texas. Texas set the building on fire; they get no credit for staying in it.

            Like

          • Playoffs Now says:

            Kirk Bohls is not a legitimate source. This is the guy who voted Ohio State higher than Miami the day AFTER Miami thoroughly whipped the Buckeyes.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Playoffs Now,

            I didn’t say UT started anything. I said they have been integral to this all along.

            And your facts are just plain wrong.UT was looking at other conferences before NE and MO. CO has been looking at the P10 for years, so that was nothing new, and that interest only became possible with UT being in talks with them.

            You should note that every school explores their options and does their due diligence regularly. They don’t all feel the need to have press conferences about it, or seek a pat on the back for not leaving.

            I should point out that I don’t “blame” UT. Blame implies there being something wrong. It may be unsightly, but every school has the right to pursue their best interests within the rules. My problem with UT has been how disingenuous some of their statements (and fans) have been. I wish they would be honest about their intentions and actions rather than trying to shift responsibility to others.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            @Playoffs Now

            Stallings over at A&M confirmed that Texas hatched up a Pac-16 years ago: the original plan was Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M to the Pac-16.

            Like

      • mcdunnski436 says:

        just 12 months after Texas tried to blow up the conference

        Ummmm….

        Come on zeek, you’re usually better than this. Nebraska left. Colorado left. Texas didn’t. Texas stayed for its own selfish reasons, I’ll grant, but I don’t think you can say Texas “tried to blow up the conference” last year.

        Like

  88. Richard says:

    You know, I just had a thought (not sure if it’s been voiced since I’m still reading today’s comments), but. . .

    Say that Mizzou reaches out to both the B10 and SEC. The B10 likely wouldn’t add 2 nonfootball powers, but if the B10 does take Mizzou, for the SEC, it would be FSU or bust (well, FSU or WVU, so really, FSU or bust). FSU to the SEC would send Miami straight to B10 headquarters in Chicagoland. Actually, Miami likely would accept a B10 offer right now if they got one, as they are scared stiff about FSU potentially leaving.

    I know some folks here see Miami’s poor fan support and don’t consider them attractive, but adding Miami would make adding Mizzou palatable to me. Academically, Mizzou is similar to Nebraska (AAU, but close to losing it), while Miami is on the upswing and already close to AAU membership. Culturally, Mizzou fits, and Miami is as northern a school as you’ll find in the south. Furthermore, there are a ton of B10 alums and fans from Tampa on south in FL. You’d also get access to the most fertile recruiting grounds (per capita) in the country, not to mention make the B10 schools visible to high schoolers in an area that really doesn’t offer much in the way of top-notch higher education choices (Miami’s pretty good, but still a relatively small private school). Ironically, Miami may actually have a greater chance at challenging for national titles again as a member of the B10. Back when they were winning national titles, Miami played a fair number of northern teams and recruited the north well. Of the 15 All-Americans Miami lists for the ’80’s, 6 were northerners, including Vinny Testaverde and Steve Walsh:
    http://hurricanesports.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/072811aan.html

    Like

    • @Richard – I feel like we’re the only ones that have really advocated Miami to the Big Ten here. If the Big Ten wants a Sun Belt presence, I don’t see how they’re not next on the list after Texas.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Thanks for making me feel less lonely, Frank.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Maybe that’s because the rest of us see big problems with adding Miami.

        In no particular order:
        1. The B10 is too conservative to extend the footprint that way.
        2. Most fans want to play local schools, not travel 1500 miles.
        3. They aren’t a cultural fit.
        4. They lack fan support.
        5. They aren’t AAU.

        If it wasn’t for the distance, and the cultural differences that come with it, Miami would be a much better choice. They are a lesser version of ND and not local.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Don’t forget a long history of the most serious types of NCAA violations, and a pro football-like mentality/approach…..

          The Smaller 10 is fat and arrogant, not crazy.

          Like

        • mike in st louis says:

          And prior to Howard Scnellenberger, they weren’t a national program. And still haven’t been able to maintain a national profile.

          I’m mystified by Frank’s continued advocacy for Miami.

          Like

          • greg says:

            The Miami talk is so crazy, I haven’t bothered to respond. B10 has added Nebraska and PSU (home runs) in last 50 years, but now they’ll decide to add a tiny private school a million miles away that can barely outdraw Indiana? please.

            Even IF there was a smidgen of a chance, the recent NCAA issues have killed it.

            Like

          • Jefferson says:

            I wouldn’t be upset with Miami in the B1G, and here’s why:
            1. Gets good TV ratings.
            2. Provides a good rival/travel partner with either FSU or Ga Tech.
            3. Have already come back from sanctions.
            4. Give access to Florida as recruiting grounds.

            Like

    • M says:

      I see Miami’s poor fan support and don’t consider them attractive. I also see their atrocious facilities, their low attendance (would be 8th in the Big Ten), their low AD revenue (12th), their mediocre overall sports (13th in the Director’s Cup), their 55-69 ranking in the ARWU (T11th), their general propensity for rule-breaking, and the fact that they have one more win than Northwestern over the last 5ish years and don’t appear to be improving any time soon. Their only appealing quality is that they are located in a good recruiting location. Why not Tulane? Rice? USF? TCU? Baylor?

      Like

      • Richard says:

        They’d bring in fans to the home games of existing B10 schools and TV viewers. There’s a reason why tOSU scheduled Miami to a home-and-home (and why both Nebraska and MSU have lined up home-and-homes in the future with the ‘Canes) despite their low home attendance. Tulane/Rice/TCU/ USF/Baylor? Not so much.

        Like

        • M says:

          Missouri would be would be within a place or two from Miami in nearly all those categories, except that Missouri has 14 wins more than Northwestern over that period and I cannot seem to find evidence of a single hooker filled boat trip.

          However, the Big Ten isn’t adding Missouri either.

          Like

      • Richard says:

        Also, the B10 doesn’t care about the Director’s Cup. Delany has said that he’d like to get rid of it (because it pressures AD’s to engage in arms races in sports that don’t make money). Now, in the secondary sports that _are_ a bit of a ratings draw, Miami’s baseball is quite good and volleyball is none too shabby as well (top 25).

        BTW, how would Mizzou stack up in those criteria? I know that they’re below average in attendance and dead-last in ARWU.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Can’t give you #s off hand on MO’s attendance, but it’s certainly more than Miami’s.

          In basketball, Missouri is a serious program, with serious support. Not so for Miami. Missouri has a legit wrestling program. In the DC’s 2011 final standings MO was #41, Miami #51.

          Academically, MO is rated #90. It is a large, flagship state u with over twice the # of students as Miami.

          Over the next 20 years, Miami will become even less relevant, given the growth and increased
          asperations of UCF and USF.

          Miami is an insane suggestion.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Less relevant in football? Academically, Miami is on the up and up, and is making the same transition from “rich kid reject school” to “elite private school” that USC & NYU (and even longer before them, Stanford) has made in the past.

            Regardless, I don’t think Miami will become less relevant in our generation. They have the most fertile recruiting area (per capita) in the country in their backyard, and even if they’re a private school, they draw ratings and opposing fan interest. tOSU and Nebraska don’t schedule home-and-homes with Wake, Vandy, or even Stanford; they do with Miami. That’s what winning multiple national titles does to your reputation.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          He may not favor the DC, but you can be sure he wants the BIG to be competitive in the minor sports. He made a point of a school’s ability to fund it’s athletic dept as an issue in his latest head-in-the-sand expansion comments…….he was probably thinking of Rutgers, maybe also MD, in that regard.

          Like

    • joe4psu says:

      I’ve been higher on Miami, GT and even FSU than most since last year. I include all three because I think that the B1G would want to, or should, add one of GT or FSU if they add Miami. GT finally gained AAU status a couple of years ago and even though they are a distant second to UGA in GA they would add alot of tv sets for the BTN. I think it is also important that GA is a large fast growing state with their place in recruiting growing accordingly. They passed PA some time ago and I believe that they are now ahead of OH as a producer of recruits.

      Like

  89. zeek says:

    GottliebShow Doug Gottlieb
    Just so you know, Mizzou still badly wants BiG,SEC is negotiating tool they may feel compelled to go,no coach/AD in programs wants it
    23 minutes ago

    Saw you retweet this Frank. Definitely worth posting considering it’s probably how all of the power players in Missouri feel right now.

    Fans (and governor?) are on board with SEC, but coaches/ADs probably want to stay in the Big 12 or move to Big Ten for competitiveness reasons, and the academics/curators would probably prefer the Big Ten.

    Of course if Deaton and Alden think that the SEC is their only choice for long term stability (and it may very well be), they might feel they have no choice but to commit. I don’t know how they’ll be competitive there though in football; they seem like they’d do worse than Arkansas has the past 2 decades. Only one game every other year in Texas; even Arkansas is likely to have that A&M game annually? That’s going to hurt their recruiting severely compared to how they built their teams the past 15+ years…

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m referring to the Arkansas game annually in Dallas…

      Like

    • @zeek – Unless Jim Delany hands Missouri a Big Ten invite within the next week, I just don’t see how Missouri could possibly do anything other than move to the SEC. Even if the Big Ten wanted Missouri down the road and vice versa, I don’t see how Mizzou being in the SEC really precludes that. If anything, Missouri might actually become more attractive. I think the recruiting angle is overstated – they’ll still get exposure in Texas with A&M.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah I agree. As long as there’s even a chance of a Pac-16 happening in the future (and there certainly is), Missouri has to take the #14 spot in the SEC.

        If the SEC goes to 14 with WVU for the long term (with no ACC options available) and the Big Ten stays at 12 because ND is independent, then Missouri would get entirely left behind if the Pac-16 ever happens (say the Pac-12 Networks and its main media deal are such an overwhelming success that Texas feels like it can make the jump, or whatever).

        Like

      • Playoffs Now says:

        Even if the Big Ten wanted Missouri down the road and vice versa, I don’t see how Mizzou being in the SEC really precludes that.

        Exactly. Scarlett O’Mizzou can marry Rhett SEC Butler and still pine for The Big Ashley, Ashley.

        Like

        • vandiver49 says:

          This is why I’m not a fan of Mizzou. While the Tigers beat WVU as an expansion candidate in a whole host of areas, nothing convinces me that they actually WANT to be in the SEC like the Mountaineers do. Conference loyalty is the foundation upon which conference stability is laid. If the B1G decides to expand 5-10 years down the road and extends an invite to Mizzou, they’d leave the SEC in a heartbeat. That attitude is why they aren’t the slam dunk everyone believes they are IMO.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Their fans certainly do…….I suspect the administrators and profs would prefer the BIG.

            I don’t buy the MO to BIG in 10 years argument. If MO is successful in SEC football, they won’t leave. If they tank, the BIG won’t want them enough to get in a war with the SEC.

            Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      There’s a MO sw named Swaim(?) who claims MO has a BIG offer……but he has not been reliable in the past.

      Like

      • greg says:

        If MO had a B1G offer, they’d already be in the conference. The way Mizzou behaves, there would be a press conference within 10 minutes of the offer.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          It’s possible that they have an offer that is not financially acceptable to them (ie…time, amount of ‘buy-in”)….I’ve seen hints to that effect over the last few months.

          Like

  90. zeek says:

    ChipBrownOB Chip Brown
    Sources tell Orangebloods.com Big 12 schools were in talks starting last night to grant rights for Tier 1 & 2 TV for closer to 13 yrs.
    1 hour ago

    Wow if this is true; that would actually make this a long term commitment…

    Like

    • zeek says:

      “One source said the granting of rights would have been closer to the length of time left on the Big 12’s Tier 2 TV deal with Fox, which has 13 years remaining.

      But as part of the agreement, there were restrictions proposed on Tier 3 content, and Texas balked, the source said. The restrictions had to do with any and all high school content, the source said. ”

      From his article on OB: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1274491

      Like

  91. loki_the_bubba says:

    Missouri to the SEC kills the Big East?

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7060457/missouri-tigers-curators-vote-consider-leaving-big-12

    One Big East coach feared the worst, telling ESPN.com via text message, “the big east is finished.”

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Depends on BYU. If BYU takes the #9 spot, then the Big 12 is likely to only take one other.

      Harder to see the Big 12 going to 12 from 8 than from 9. Too many mouths to feed on mainly Texas/OU’s value…

      Like

      • mcdunnski436 says:

        I’ve long stated that BYU is really the only attractive and realistic school on the table, but I’m beginning to look at this through a different prism. If the primary goal for Texas is cobbling together a conference which can last for a few years while the school determines whether the LHN is long-term viable, perhaps there’s some safety in numbers. Also, with A&M gone, the idea of replacing A&M with another Texas school isn’t as redundant as it was before, which makes TCU (and even, yes, UH) at least plausible.

        Yeah, going to 12 instead of 10 might mean a few more mouths to feed, but if it helps keep the conference alive, so be it.

        My main concern is that BYU makes sense in this scenario, and Louisville makes sense, but I’m not sure both at the same time (particularly if the conference only goes to 10) makes as much sense, as we’d be picking up two geographic outliers in entirely different directions.

        As a Texas fan, I also kind of like seeing BYU out there as the canary in the non-ND independence coal mine.

        I’ll take (sigh) TCU/Louisville (for 10) or TCU/Louisville/UC/WVU (for 12) and hold my nose for a few years. I almost prefer the 12-team scenario since it prevents any school being a geographic outlier.

        Like

    • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

      Mizzou is out…Big 12 will expand for sure. Louisville is first…TCU might be a candidate…even WVU or Cincy might warrant invites.

      Like

  92. Tom Smith says:

    I still don’t like the idea of the SEC moving into the Midwest to snatch Mizzou. Doesn’t feel right. I know Mizzou is not the home run the B1G is looking for, but does geography make a difference to the B1G.? Does the B1G have any resentment about the SEC coming into our neighborhood?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      That’s really no different from taking WVU and getting a part of the Pittsburgh TV market…

      Like

    • Peter says:

      The B1G had first dibs on Missouri and turned them down last year. They just don’t see Missouri in their model, not unless they are #14 or #16.

      I suppose the B1G could grab Missouri and Rutgers and thus destroy the Big East when the Big 12 raids them for Louisville+. That would leave ND homeless and force them to join the B1G. It doesn’t make much financial sense on its own, but both Rutgers & Missouri fit the B1G academically & culturally and so might be palatable to the B1G CEO’s as a strategy. Those presidents & chancellors run the show, far more than any other conference.

      Maryland would probably be #16 in that case, since it sure as hell looks like that’s what they’re trying to pull off on their end. They’re a B1G-ish school and they stiff-armed a loyalty pledge to the ACC despite being a founding member of the conference. They have ~$500 million in research funding, so they are probably thinking all about the CIC.

      Like

  93. drwillini says:

    I don’t think anhybody would be too dissappointed with Rutgers/Maryland/ND/Missouri if we are going to B16. The problems are: Mizzou would be the last piece and not the first, and this foursome leaves no room for UT. Substitute UT and you have what many people would consider to be the ideal B16.

    Like

    • mcdunnski436 says:

      But what I have learned from this site is that no one really wants UT, so that shouldn’t be a concern.

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      Then why not make Rutgers and Maryland #13-14, since both qualify in academics/athletics/research/population (for BTN subscriptions) and actually want to be in the Big Ten without making any demands the conference would deem a dealbreaker? Given the increasingly close Notre Dame and Texas ties, they likely would want to go in as a tandem, and you can always leave #15-16 open for them.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        But as others have said of Rutgers, if it delivered NYC or even just NJ, it’d have been added already.

        So what about Maryland/Missouri? Those two probably deliver their states with assists from Nebraska/Illinois in STL/KC and from Penn State in Maryland/DC?

        For some reason Maryland/Missouri has become the most logical move if the Big Ten ever felt it needed to go to 14 without ND. Of course, the Big Ten doesn’t really feel that way, so it’s probably a moot point.

        Regardless, in terms of culture/fit, are there two better fits than Maryland/Missouri right now?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Er, meant “to me, Maryland/Missouri has become the most logical move”…

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            There is the issue of Maryland fan’s level of support of a move to the BIG. And also, a much bigger issue…..that being, that the BIG presidents have very little appetite for a conference expansion that would so dramatically alter the landscape. It’s one thing to take a Rutgers team from a Big Least that no longer has a real reason to exist—quite another to raid the ACC. Raiding the ACC has very serious political overtones……….

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything on either side to suggest that there’s any interest in a Maryland to the Big Ten scenario.

            It’s just that I think the only viable expansion scenario (i.e. one that works for BTN/money) is Maryland/Missouri if ND is totally off the table… but that doesn’t mean it would ever happen.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            mushroom:

            More serious political overtones that taking Nebraska from the B12? It’s not like taking UMD would kill off the ACC (while taking Rutgers actually may); the ACC would just replenish from the BE.

            Like

        • Phil says:

          I have no doubt that adding Rutgers would bring the fan interest that SHOULD get you at least the NJ TVs (which would pay their way by itself) . I think, however, the Big Ten’s doubt has to do with the cable landscape in this area.

          A good portion of NJ and NYC is serviced by Cablevision. They fight every new channel. Even the Yankees YES network and the NFL network had delays before Cablevision would carry them.

          I would guess the Cablevision problem is why Rutgers isn’t at the top of the list and why they only get lumped in as an add-on with ND.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Agreed on all points; that’s the only reason why I’m suggesting Maryland/Missouri.

            I think those are the only two schools near the Big Ten that would actually bring value to the BTN in and of themselves.

            Each is like a 13.5; probably covers its share pro-rata although not like a king or a school like Texas A&M that justifies itself as #13 outright…

            Like

        • joe4psu says:

          When you have proof about RU I’ll buy it. Until then I’m not convinced by your statement that if RU could deliver NJ they would already be in the B1G. The same argument should apply to schools like Mizzou and UMD.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Mizzou doesn’t really meet the B10’s academic standards. UMD is roughly the same as Rutgers (better academics; less people), but maybe they haven’t wanted to leave the ACC up to now (while we know Rutgers, or any sane school, would jump at the chance to join another AQ conference).

            Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        TX and ND’s mutual attraction is based on independence. If they give up independence to go to a conference, they have very little in common. Therefore, it is doubtful to me they have any particular ambition to be in the same conference, unless of course, it’s one they can mutually rape and pillage.

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Of those 4, ND is #1 and the other three are 2a, 2b, and 2c.

      MO is the best run institution of the 3. MO and Rutgers athletics have been deeply in debt. Advantage MO.

      MO has the most instant rivalries. Advantage MO.

      MO is acceptable in academics and research, but advantage to MD (#1) and Rutgers (#2).

      MO and MD are far better than Rutgers as a total athletic dept. MD was #17 in the DC, MO #41, Rutgers #158. One would have to ask where the $ would come form to improve Rut’s facilities.

      Rutgers has the NY/NJ market…..setting aside the issue of their attractiveness in that market, it is much more populous, and playing in NJ/NY would be attractive to all the other BIG teams.

      Taking MD would be much more difficult and disruptive to CF. Advantage MO and Rut.

      Like

  94. Hopkins Horn says:

    PS: mcdunnski is me, if the snark didn’t give it away.

    I created a new admin username for my own WP blog for my business, and now it’s wiped out my cookies. I have to post this from my phone and figure out how to log in on my computer again.

    Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Ah, there was go. My login was saved as cookies under “guest”.

      BTW, does anyone else ever post comments here from a Droid? It’s one of the more painful things I have to do – something about typing in the comment field on a WP site from a Droid just slows the performance down incredibly — about one character every five seconds or so can be entered on my phone.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        I haven’t had that problem, however, I have an EVO 3D.

        Like

      • mike in st louis says:

        @HH – I have the same problem with my iPhone 3Gs, so I don’t think it’s a Droid issue. And please don’t tell me anything bad about Droid, because I’m about to buy a Samsung Galaxy S II. 😉

        Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          There are some comment fields which are slow on the Droid, but nothing, and I mean nothing, is lower than the comment field for this site.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Hopkins:

            I notice that this site (I assume any WordPress site) slows down considerably on my Droid phone after several hundred comments have been added. When the number of comments is low, it’s pretty fast.

            Like

  95. EZCUSE says:

    Is there any chance of the SEC taking Mizzou, Louisville, and West Virginia?

    Just thinking out loud here… but the SEC doesn’t need any more power football schools. Do they? At some point, you just start diminishing the importance of games. There is only so much that can be watched.

    Meanwhile, the SEC basketball is an afterthought, especially compared to the ACC. They are somewhere between the Big 10 of old (Ohio State, Michigan, and nobody else)… and the Big East (nobody else) in football. Adding 3 basketball schools suddenly helps make the SEC a year-round conference, rather than one that disappears from December to April. Anyone watching Florida-LSU in February? No. But someone will watch Florida-Louisville–Donovan v Pitino. Huggins v Calipari in Kentucky v Louisville. Meanwhile… with more good basketball schools… there are more opportunities for the other SEC schools to prove themselves worthy. More tourney teams. More P.R. More inventory someday when the ESPN deal runs out.

    In any event, football drives the bus.. but Louisville and WVU are hardly pushovers. Charlie Strong will either lead Louisville to the promised land or get grabbed by an SEC school before he can complete it. You get a lot of geographic continuity with those adds too.

    I get that the SEC could take Florida St., etc. But when you are the best football conference, there is no more room to go up. And nobody is touching the SEC on football any time soon.

    Not saying it is likely, but I see a lot of logic in these three teams to get to #16.

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Meant WVU v Kentucky.

      Like

    • greg says:

      Absolutely zero chance the SEC takes MO, LVL, WV.

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        Well, if Greg says so, then it must be true.

        Like

        • greg says:

          Well, you asked. There is zero incentive for the SEC to take 3 teams, particularly those three. WVU is in a tiny state, LVL is a second banana (and would break the supposed SEC gentlemen’s agreement about adding from an existing state), and MO is MO. They may take one of the three to get to 14, but that is it. Why would they fill out at 16 with “middling” options? If FSU was on board, some 16 scenario could happen.

          Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            #1. I am going off the rumor that WVU and Missouri are not mutually exclusive.

            #2. What makes them a middling option? The SEC is already #1 in football. And these schools would not make it worse. If anything, it would make it better. An Ole Miss team destined for 6-6, would now have one or two more winnable games to get to 8-4. That makes the 10-2 South Carolina team look that much better. That makes the 12-0 Alabama team that much better yet.

            Look at the Big East in basketball. They added a bunch of fodder, but got 11 teams in the Big Dance. The fodder created a bunch of teams that were tourney eligible. Meanwhile, a positively mediocre UConn team was so battle-tested that it was able to win it all. The 9th best Big East team won it. But for the fodder, they would have been 5 and 11 and missed out entirely.

            #3. If you are Kentucky or Tennessee, do you want Oklahoma added to the conference? If you are Ole Miss or Arkansas, do you need Florida State? Too many schools already have a problem in getting to the top of the mountain. Only room for so many Kings in one conference.

            However, if you add schools that are relevant in both football and basketball… you suddenly juice up that equation. How important is that for Kentucky basketball? And if the NCAA implodes under the weight of 5 mega conferences, suddenly basketball becomes a bigger issue.

            #4. If FSU was on board, why add any of the middling options? Just go to 14 and be done with it. But my guess is that FSU is not at all on board. Why have any discussions with anyone else at all? You’ve got A&M. Be done with it. I think we can assume that Mizzou is talking to the SEC. Otherwise, yesterday’s exercise was pointless.

            #5. I have never heard of a gentleman’s agreement involving Kentucky. My understanding was that it was between Georgia, SC, and Florida. Those schools have always had a potential add that makes sense (GT, Clemson, FSU). Louisville hasn’t made football sense. But it is getting there. First under Petrino and soon under Strong.

            Not a Lville fan at all. Just pointing out that if these decisions are made on a 100-year basis… maybe it makes some sense to project out scenarios at least 10-15 years. What schools are today is not determinative of what they are in the future.

            Like

          • greg says:

            You still haven’t listed an incentive for the SEC. It will reduce their per-school payout, most likely. All current SEC schools would play each other less often. Adding those schools doesn’t magically give the existing schools two more wins a year, that is crazy talk. The gentlemen’s agreement rumors never mentioned LVL because LVL isn’t remotely a candidate, other than in the media.

            100 year basis? So they should add a school (WVU) in a tiny state with poor academic chops because they have decent football and basketball teams at the moment? Or the commuter school second banana (LVL)?

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @greg

            Here’s a quote from the Kentucky AD on Louisville. Louisville has been discussed.


            I’m not gonna say one way or the other (that UK wouldn’t veto Louisville), I’m gonna do what’s best for our league and if Mike Slive says he thinks this is best for our league I’ll look at it and say, ‘This is what I think this means for Kentucky.’ But that is not something he has crossed that bridge with us yet.”

            http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/uks-barnhart-talks-acc-and-louisville/

            Like

          • Mike says:

            … has been discussed In the media, but I don’t think it changes that Lousiville is way down the list after Missouri and WV.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            typo prone today… ignore me.

            Like