Looks like the SEC has passed on their bid.
Let's All Laugh at A&M?
a Texas fan right now...
That's the only downside... Texas fans are laughing as their school gets its way again.
Was extremely skeptical A&M could change conferences without UT leading the way, especially moving up to the SEC. More espn hype ends with a wimper
As a graduate of both UM and UT (and a former season ticket holder as a student at both schools), I love the A&M schadenfreude.
There are a lot of similarities between MSU/A&M, but the raging insecurity of the A&M fanbase really sets them apart.
When the Hosuton Chronicle accidentally referred to UT Athletic Director Deloss Dodds as the "Big 12 commissioner," earlier this week, I think there was a collective head asplode moment for all A&M fans. Freudian slip?
A&M fans' raging insecurities set them apart from MSU fans' raging insecurities?
....but just don't get caught wearing a hat in their student union.
Maybe A&M will be headlining a revived SWAC conference in a few years.
I never really understood the SEC's motivation to expand further (if there was any). They've got 12 teams and the championship game, they always get two BCS bids, they've got their own network now - they're basically swimming in cold hard cash. Adding more teams doesn't seem to add much more and means dividing things up more different ways.
Adding A&M would expand the SEC Network's reach to the Houston and Dallas markets. Those are two large enough markets to at least entertain the idea.
But it would also basically necessitate adding a 14th team to balance things out. At that point you're basically two separate conferences that happen to play a playoff game in December. Also, the added revenues might be offset by the need to share them 14 ways instead of 12, as well as the added travel expenses of going to Texas.
But don't they already have decent inroads into Houston and Dallas with LSU and Arkansas? I mean, I'm sure that the SEC network is available in those cities, as large numbers of Texas citizens went to SEC schools. I guess it helps having an in-state school, but I feel like the SEC and the state of Texas have a decent amount of overlap.
from the article, A&M approached the SEC and not the other way around.
This is more of a A&M pissed off at UTexass than anything else. And from the sounds of things, the current Big12 set-up is really a support system for UTexass' ego and money grubbing ways; the other then 11 teams including my Sooners were there just to keep them fat dumb and happy. This is why it was so easy to get Nebraska and Colorado left fo the PACnn.
Missouri is screwed unless the Big10 expands again, since they do qualify academically -- unlike my Sooners (1 failed attemp during the 80's to qualify.), but they become dependent on UND desiding to join the Big10 instead of the Bid Least sometime in the future. Also, the state legilatures will force KU to take KState with them and OU to take OState with them; neither KU and OU are free agents in this.
when a conference adds A&M or any TX school it opens up Texas, the top hs recruiting state. Recruiting reaches a whole new level when your conference plays games in that state.
Did Nebraska's Texas recruiting improve/change significantly when the Big XII was formed? Has it fallen off in significant ways since joining the Big 10?
I can see the possibility for this happening, but i'd like to see some quantification to believe in the conference recruiting effect.
for obvious reasons as a small population state. Texas has always been important, being one of the top states for hs talent.
Nebraska has made recruiting the Lone Star state one of its top priorities especially since joining the BXII. This year we have 24 Texans on the roster, Last year there were 25. Compare that to the early BXII years: In 1996, 6 from TX, in 1997, 8.
We do expect less emphasis as we put the BXII in the rear view mirror, and more focus on the B1G states. 2 of our 6 2012 committs are from the B1G, none so far from Texas(small class of only 15, and there will definately be Texans). But Texas will always be prominant.
Texas is a prized media and recruiting opportunity for the SEC, just as it would be for the B1G if a Texas school joined up. That's what makes them such a hot commodity and power in college football, not discounting also being an all-time leader in wins.
With only eight conference games, A&M would basically add another bowl team and more revenue into the conference. I don't know if they are any good in the Olympic sports, but it seems like getting two additional bowl eligible teams would end up bringing more net cash into the conference.
Does three straight national championshIps in both Men's and Women's Outdoor Track & Field count as being good at Olympic Sports?
Oh the humanity!
They are all freaking out dow here! A&M wants to bolt and they want to get away from Texas and their network.
OUCH....THe big ten should contact A&M...clearly they want to save face and fit almost all criteria for expansion....
So we can show the world we love the SEC's leftovers? It's bad enough that Ron Zook has a job here.
If leftovers are one of the two top schools in Texas, then yes...a no brainer.
Although, this might all be for naught as the SEC is saving face here and avoiding any litigation if a move does occur. In essence, expect A&M to leave the Big 12 and then sign with the SEC...It doesn't look like obvious collusion this way
Expanding beyond 12 schools is far from a no-brainer. There is no clear benefit to doing so, besides the pie-in-the-sky "If there are four 16-team conferences, we'll get a playoff!" reasoning.
They do and it would help with recruiting down here a whole lot.
All of the conference wants a piece of the pie ala Texas network.
that pretty much sums up the situation.
So much schadenfreude. Too bad I don't hate A&M, then i'd really enjoy it
This is a tough one. I don't know who I hate more..Texas or the SEC. Having said that, I still think the survival of the Big 12 is best for College football.
They died when they lost their conference championship game. In the 80's they were 2 different conferences, I think. I never really knew anything about their history except they cheated like it was going out of style and every national championship ever claimed by the conference should come with an asterisk.
yes they were -- the old Big 8 and the Southwest Conf.
The SWC was really 7 texas teams (UTexass, A&M, TEch, Baylor, TCU, SMU and Rice) plus Arkansas for most of its existence. Arkansas left in the late 80's early 90's to join the SEC, which supprisingly was a cleaner league at that time. (think SMU crap at that time) The BIg 8 had asked Texass and A&M to join but wre force to take Baylor and TEch with them (or maybe switch tech for A&M -- can't remember right now); the two additional schools were forced by the Texas lege and governor at that time; thus, the BIg 12 was born.
The new league was unstable from the get go with both Missouri and Colorado always looking elsewhere. Clearly, Nebraska got fed up with the Texass serving crap and jumped when offered -- by the Big (we can't count) 10.
All Teams should join the SEC = any playoff system they want, plus a monopoly on the bowl games. "Another fine mess you've gotten me into!"
This should be viewed as a close call for Texas. If the Aggies had bolted, the Big 12 would have been in shambles. They are going to have to find a balance between being a diva and appeasing the other members of their conference or next time they may not be as lucky. As it stands right now a 1 loss SEC team still may get the nod over an undefeated Big 12 team.
a one loss B1G team? :)
A&M fans think this is just an attempt by the SEC to avoid a lawsuit by inviting A&M while they're still a member of the Big 12. They think the SEC will grant them admission once they officially ask.
No idea if that's true, but that's what they're going with.
UTs lawyers threatened a lawsuit, so SEC is just covering their ass until tomorrow
Yeah, it sounds like TAMU will just leave the Big 12 of their own accord tomorrow and then the SEC will swoop in with the invite after they've decided if they're adding a 14th team or standing pat with 13.
I think this will be an interesting week for all of the conferences. There could be alot of movement from different schools. OK and OKS want to be a package.
I can imagine it now.
COMMISSIONER SLIVE: Alright. Texas A&M?
Everyone in room:
SLIVE: Ok. Settled then.
I'd really like to be a fly on the wall as to why the reallignment didn't go down. I wouldn't be surprised if influence outside of the SEC was brought.
or Miami to the SEC before it'll be a school from Texas.
not likely... Clay Travis has been right on most of this stuff and he's saying Florida, Georgia and South Carolina have formed a voting pact to keep other teams from their states out. The SEC is supposed to be hot for a school in either Virginia or North Carolina (most probably VT or NC State) or even Texas Tech.
Both would actually bring up the academic rep of the SEC, are second fiddles to other schools in their state (or in the case of NC St, 3rd). Texas Tech would be a nice counter with TAMU since the SEC could then move Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East (but we'd miss those Tuberville wars between TT and Auburn /s). Figure TAMU & TT to the SEC you'd get:
Florida, S Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama
Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, Arkansas, Vandy, TAMU, TT
The official designation of "meat grinder" would shift from today's SEC West to tomorrow's SEC East.
Alternatively, scratch TT for one of the VT/NCSt teams and you'd get:
SEC East: Florida, SCar, Georgia, Kentucky, Tenn, Vandy, VT/NCSt
SEC West: OleMiss, Miss St, LSU, Arkansas, Alabama, Auburn, TAMU
A litle more balanced, traditional rivalries are maintained (Vandy-Tenn, Bama-LSU) and TAMU picks up instant rival in Arkansas and VT/NCSt gets to scrap with Kentucky or SCar. Probably a better fit than the TAMU/TT combo deal.
The menu will likely be Valium and Old Number 7.
I'd still take Pitt and Missouri over A&M if the B1G wanted to expand to an (unnecessary) 14 teams. A&M's profile academically would work, but I'm not sold they would help that much with recruiting (Texas will always lock down top talent in the state, and most national teams have some success there) and the cost of travel would be horrible for non-revenue teams.
But that can change quickly with OU and A&M rising. If we had a Texas team in the Big Ten that'd help simply because we'd be able to tell them that we'll play in Texas on a semiregular basis. I still think the best additions would be UT and ND or A&M simply because of the money it'd bring in plus you could divide the divisions more regionally. Imagine UM-OSU and Nebraska/ND-UT playing on the last weekend to go to the title game? It'd be awesome.
It'd be fantastic for our baseball team.
OU regularaly pulls top talent from Texas. This year is a bit of an anamoly but if you go back and look up the Rivals stats, it's there.
Think about it, two major rivals, one (ohio & Texas) are major talent states with no real internal rivals, the other (Michigan & OU) pulls a lot of that talent and is inherently better and awesome. Now if only we could have a recent head to head record like OU does.
This is actually really good for us. I feel like if A&M and an ACC team went to the SEC, then the PAC was going to expand (OU, OSU, Tech, and someone). That in turn triggers B10 expansion and maybe another round of SEC expansion. Basically it creates super conferences. This prevents that.
The big picture feeling though was it would be impossible for anyone to remain independent in this scenario. After all everyone was saying superconferences are the only thing that would force ND to join up.
If Texas goes independent I think the B12 might be able to limp along still. If they grabbed TCU from the Big East, they'd end up as a conference that likely has 3-4 teams ranked at the end of the every year and for the most part the status quo would be maintained.
I defnitely don't want to see anyone go above 14 teams.
So I'm following Andy Staples and Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated on Twitter, and they seem to think this is less "pass" and more "let's wait until we get all the legal stuff in line so we don't get sued". So maybe we shouldn't point and laugh just yet?
Clay Travis has been really solid on this as well. Here is what he wrote today about the SEC trying not to get sued and how ESPN is complicating things by having contracts with everyone:
They seemed more focused on possible tampering if the SEC invited a school that was currently a member of another conference. Which might be very relevant with A&M's meeting tomorrow.
There are ALOT of details to be worked out..they need some time..this changes nothing
They certainly have to be feeling it big time today.
from that article thats what u took from IT?
read between the lines..."Let us find a suitable 14th give us some time then your IN
gotta cover all your bases ;)
They hate Texas. They talk about Texas all the time, Texas is their biggest rival, beating Texas is in their school fight song, but the biggest rival of Texas is Oklahoma. I still like A&M. My grandpa went there from Cass Tech and studied radio to be an experimental radar operator for the Pacific Fleet during WW2. This is still funny though.
also mentions A&M--"And it's goodbye to A&M".
Michigan is ranked #29 academically according to U.S. News and World Reports.
Texas is ranked #45. Texas A&M is #63. Michigan State is #79.
A&M isn't Sparty in all regards, still a pretty decent school, and at least competitive in terms of educational ranking.
Now Michigan State compared with Michigan, on the other hand . . .
This is far from over and I would expect that at this time next year we would be on the cusp of 4 super conferences. BigEast/ACC, SEC, Big10, Pac10. ND could definitely jump in on the BEast/Big10 list. It all basically hinges on Texas. Once the Texas pin is pulled the SuperConference grenade is armed.
The fourth super conference is going to be the hardest to come together. The Big East has 9 teams, the ACC has 12. If we assume the SEC steals at least 1 ACC team and the Big Ten steals at least one Big East team, there are 3 leftovers there. And then there are the Kansas schools, which are need to land somewhere.
Don't forget that Conf USA is still out there, has some legit Div I schools including schools in the deep south football states of Florida & Lousiana (Cent Fla & Tulane) and Texas (including Houston, & SMU). I could see Conf USA prostituting themselves to the remaining Big XII schools even if UT leaves so that OU, OkSt, Kan, KSt grabs the Conf USA schools under the "Big XII" banner, keeps their auto-bid in the BCS (which would likely form the basis of autobids in a national playoff down the road), and actually set themselves up as a damn good basketball conference (think Kansas, OU, Memphis as a top tier with a second tier of Houston, OkSt, KSt, Tulane-- not half bad) that would probably get 3-6 bids each year.
At the end of the day, you'd have 5 superconferences:
ACC/Big East merger
in a 12 team playoff, that allows for 7 at-large bids (enough for 1 additional each for the superconferences and 2 throwaways to your BYU / ND / Mtn West / MAC / Sun Belt 1-yr wonders)
I have to think that the Pac-12 would swoop in and take the Oklahoma schools before anyone else could act and then try and use them to bring Texas in, so it's hard to imagine C-USA landing anything more than a Kansas school or Baylor (Iowa State being a lock for the MAC).
This would change the face of college football so dramatically that it's tough to even think about.
Have fun in the BXII!
[drives away in limo with champagne and strippers]
You forgot to remind them about those sweet monicals the B1G bought all it's teams (well, OSU loaned theirs to Pryor and he's not returning calls, but whatever).
I know it was only rumored, but can you imagine what would happen if Pryor squealed to the NCAA? The warming afterglow would keep us happy and fed for months.
I respectfully disagree. This does not foreclose A&M going to the SEC. (1) 11 of 12 SEC presidents were present - unclear who was not and what the vote breakdown was. (2) Unclear for the reason in refusing to extend membership to A&M; if it is based on not wanting A&M, I will retract my statement. If however, it is based on not having a 14th team, that's a different story. It makes more sense for the SEC to have another team lined up before extending membership to a 13th team. SEC doesn't want to be like the MAC, with the MAC East teams not all playing each other since the addition of Temple.
The 14th team...
That's the problem. The SEC West can expand westward without the risk of losing many of their regional recruits to the new member (in this case A&M). The new SEC East school (member #14) would be someone some team(s) already share a home recruiting ground with. They can't expand east to the Bahamas. The SEC East will be resistant to adding A&M unless the concomitant 14th team comes from N.C. or further north. My guess is that is why A&M was not invited.
Or move a team from the SEC West to the SEC East, and add another team to the West.
Clemson, Florida State, and Louisville are viable SEC East teams that have been floated out there, too. Although, I have heard that South Carolina and Kentucky may object to their rivals joining the SEC. The additions of Clemson, Florida State and Louisville arguably do not add much, as the media markets have already been established in South Carolina, Florida, and Kentucky.
The interesting option I heard on ESPN Sportscenter Sunday on the radio earlier was adding Virginia Tech. Based on the relative proximity to D.C. and the expansion into the Virginia/D.C. media market, might make sense. Also would add credibility for academics, instead of having Vanderbilt as the sole academically sound school (would be three with Texas A&M, too).
What are your thoughts on Clemson, Florida State, Louisville or Virginia Tech?
I love it!
I am pretty surprised that A&M didnt scout the SEC before putting this out there. They now have lost a lot of credibility, and basically burned bridges in the Big 12. Ugly.
The legal issues likely arose after this all came out, and this meeting allows the SEC to establish a legal stance of not tampering.