ESPN reporting A&M to SEC; likely Clemson, FSU, and Missouri as well

Submitted by FreddieMercuryHayes on
Well some of these were obvious, but Missouri? Can someone explain this? EDIT: ESPN now backing off the "likely", and now saying "may"

NOLA Wolverine

August 13th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

The NCAA is trying to figure out ways to prevent student athletes from making money on the side while simultaneously watching conferences squable and scramble to figure out how to maximize bowl and network revenues. If they're so damn concerned with there being a level playing field for student athlethes financially then they aught to walk the talk and just split sports revenue equally across the board. If you believe this is unfair, citing something along the lines that it would be ridiculous for Texas and San Diego State to be on the same playing field as fair as revenue is concerned when it's completely obvious that Texas is worth a lot more, consider a comparision a comparision between Andrew Luck and Nick Sheridan and think about how that's not nearly the same thing. People are willing to pay more for Texas sports on their own, and so they do by buying the Longhorn Network. In the same sense that boosters are willing to pay to see Reggie Bush do ridiculous things in their school colors. The NCAA is helping neither party in these examples, yet they feel some need to restrict the student athelte because that situation was "unfair". If student athletes need to be subjected to the "student athlete" and "tradition" cheap talk, then so should schools. Because this re-alignment stuff is hypocritical and fucking stupid. If the day comes where we don't have the oppurtunity to shedule Alabama because we need to load our schedule with Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse you can count me in for the NFL Network.

MichiganAggie

August 13th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^

It's not official yet as far as A&M joining the SEC. The BOR are meeting Monday to OK the move (although they already authorized the President to make the move). Tomorrow the SEC is voting to grant A&M membership officially, although they've already told A&M they are in.
<br>
<br>The only potential hold up is pressure from the Texas state congress and from UT. UT wants A&M to stay and is using their lawyers to do so, despite UT bullying A&M with the Longhorn Network. Some congressmen are worried A&M leaving will mean fewer dollars for TTech & Baylor (because the Big12 could dissolve and they would be relegated to CUSA like conferences). Welcome to the shenanigans that is Texas politics...

MGoJoe

August 13th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^

Nothing will happen. A&M is trying to get more money from Big12/Texas. Once they get a bigger slice of the pie they will be content with staying in the Big 12 for now.

kzoo_man

August 13th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^

Oklahoma doesn't pass the Sparty test in academics, Virgina doesn't pass the Sparty test in football (though it would be a huge gain academically to add them), and Oklahoma State doesn't pass the Sparty test in either category.   VaTech also doesn't pass the Sparty test academically, and probably not in football either.

Thus all four schools are a no-go.... though I do wish UVa was in the B1G footprint.

DenverRob

August 13th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

way is the BIG taking Kansas or Kstate. Sorry Bball fans, but that sport has ZERO say in expansion. Also, KU has nothing to do with the St. Louis market. There are not even the fourth biggest college team in that market.

OU, Texas, ND would be nice football wise. Im sure the BIG will end up taking 2 two teams that I generally won't care for though like Pitt and Maryland.

 

kirtip

August 13th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^

I think the big ten needs to take another shot at notre dame, maybe with Texas. Notre Dame has solid histories with Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State. They for the regional, academic, and athletic standards of the Big ten as well. With all this change and movement with conferences, and possibly leading to a playoff, Notre Dame could finally join.