Missouri informally agrees to join SEC
Just reported on ESPN. Will provide a link once it is available.
EDIT: Kansas City Star link from earlier today (http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/9/20/2438205/missouri-sec-offer-repo…)
EDIT: Missouri Rivals Article
September 20th, 2011 at 8:18 PM ^
Big Ten... eh
Big 12... eh
South East Conference... eh
Atlantic Coast Conference... eh
September 20th, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^
Maybe Legends and Leaders wasnt as stupid as we originally thought......It's quite flexible and now we can go out and get Wyoming, University of Vermont and UAB and not have to change a thing.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
What's this Legends and Leaders you're talking about? I think you mean the "Bo" and "Woody" divisions.
September 21st, 2011 at 7:44 PM ^
"The First State" is obviously a Leader.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^
Wow, Jim Delaney really screwed the pooch on this one. Why is the Big Ten always a decade behind eveyrone? The Big Ten will get weaker now when the other superconferences are formed.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^
Thats what I just said and I got flamebait and my comment removed. I would of liked to have Pitt in here because they're a force in bball and education level is excellent, football wise they aren't bad either.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^
Pretty sure you got flamebaited and deleted because of your description of ND, not because of the comment in general.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:28 PM ^
haha that is true. They just drive me insane and are all around where I live.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:28 PM ^
Truth
September 20th, 2011 at 8:54 PM ^
September 21st, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
I've never understood this argument. The Big 10 has added two teams in my lifetime - Penn St. and Nebraska. Between them, a claim to 7 national championships, countless conference championships, and some of the best winning percentages in CFB history. That's how you keep the quality of the conference up - you only take the best. The ACC decided it needed to add some teams for basketball (because football is definitely not in the driver's seat for that conference), so it pulled in Pitt and Syracuse. That's great for them, but outside of Syracause in basketball and Lacrosse, neither is an "elite" program and, while decent academically, are not going to dramatically change the profile for the conference.
And the SEC, in its infinite wisdom, decided it wanted to accept a mediocre Texas A&M and (potentially) Mizzou to fill out its roster, which I guess is good for them but seems like adding two meandering teams with little national cache.
I'm fine with the Big 1G only letting in the best. ND probably won't go to the ACC because of the travel costs (and being a mediocre football conference doesn't help), and geographically only the Big 1G makes sense, so if they jump they'll go local. At that point, the conference would probably pillage a Texas or (maybe) a mid-atlantic team like UVa or Maryland to fill it out. But if not, I'm fine with the way the conference is laid out, and don't see the dramatic gains by the SEC or ACC from these moves.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^
The B1G can afford to be picky. They have 4 of the blue bloods of college football, in Michigan, OSU, Penn State, and Nebraska. No conference with those teams can ever be shut out of the national picture. The B1G can then pick and choose whoever they want from the wreckage. If they don’t want to add anyone, they don’t have to. It doesn’t make sense for the B1G to expand just for the sake of expanding. They should only expand if the right suitor comes along.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
IF, and it is a big if, ND goes to the ACC and Mizzou to the SEC. What happens if one of the other conferences picks off a "blue blood" B1G member. For example, with ND in the ACC along with BC, Pitt and Syracuse, it might make sense for the ACC to try and pry PSU away. It would then be a pretty good football conference (ND, PSU, FSU and Miami) and of course great a bball. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that this might be attractive to PSU.
The B1G would have to backfill with Kansas?
September 20th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^
has left the Big Ten since the University of Chicago and that was basically because they swore off athletics. I don't see any school leaving the Big Ten. We got our championship game, there's nothing better about 16 schools, so there's no reason for further expansion.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:43 PM ^
I really don't see anyone leaving either, but I don't buy the argument that it won't/can't happen because it hasn't happened in a long time. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
And if it's been a dumb idea for 100 years, it's probably still a dumb idea now. That I can predict for you based on past evidence.
Chicago didn't even leave the Big Ten anyway; they cut their whole division 1 sports program. They still maintained administrative/academic CIC relationships.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:23 AM ^
if it's been done that way for 100 years, it's clearly never going to change. just look at this stupid internet fad. it'll be no time at all before people are back to writing letters. email... what a joke!
September 20th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^
Money is why it won't happen. Big10 rakes in money in a way the ACC can only dream of. Big10 has bigger stadiums, bigger TV audiences, bigger fanbases, you name it. That's why no one will be leaving anytime soon... And really, the history/rivalries is part of WHY the Big10 rakes in all that money.
Prime example: Michigan just sucked in a historically bad way the last 3 years, and yet they always managed to get on national TV 2-3 times a year.... Because even a crappy Michigan pulls in huge TV ratings. You sure don't see Connecticut or Cincinnati doing that.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:58 PM ^
How many B1G schools would you say are unhappy with the way things have gone in the conference?
September 20th, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^
The only thing we were missing out on was a Conference Championship game and now we have that. More isn't always better, sometimes it's just more. Mizzou was technically in the realm of future possibility to fit in with the B1G but i'm certainly not going to start crapping myself if they aren't in my conference. These schools could just as easily leave the next conference they join as the last ones they all left.
September 21st, 2011 at 8:16 AM ^
I hear you on that level. Just b/c the XFL meant more football on TV didn't mean it was better.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:47 PM ^
The ACC teams make a LOT less money. They are reliant on ESPN for all of their TV revenue. Would you rather be in that situation or already getting more $$ from a growing BTN?
I'd be surprised if Pitt, BC or Maryland wouldn't jump on an offer from the B1G.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:55 PM ^
I'd be A-OK with adding Maryland and ND. That would give us as much of an East Coast influence as the ACC almost, and it would lock in the Midwest. I don't know if either of those are willing, though.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:02 PM ^
Yes to Maryland! All us DC alums can take the Metro to the game if so...
September 20th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
Maryland's athletic department is struggling financially. They are looking to cut sports, spend the least on football in the ACC. They should be ripe for the plucking.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
I'd love Maryland. But $20 million buyout, man.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
Srsly. Stop with the 20M buyout stuff. It is irrelevant. Period. Please remember that the increase in the buyout from where it was is less than one year's worth of revenue difference.
September 21st, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
"I need to jump to a new conference because I'm bleeding money and need greater revenue... let me just spend that entire first year's revenue to get out of my old conference"
that makes perfect sense
September 21st, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
If they're making 5 mil or so more than they are now, then it does make sense since I'm assuming Maryland would expect to stay in the Big Ten for more than 4 years. Also, if it ends up benefiting their research, those departments might help fit the bill.
September 21st, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
I wouldn't be surprised to see Maryland jump, except they probably want to keep the "rivalry" with Duke alive. Of course, we are talking about an OOC game at worst, but that would be only complaint I could imagine hearing.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Maryland ain't walking through that door.
So they'd give up playing Duke and UNC in basketball, new games with teams in the same cultural and geographic area like UVa, VT, and now Pitt and SU, and even the NC teams that are just a few hours drive, for Penn State and a bunch of games and travel to Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Michigan?
Not to mention a $20 million exit fee.
Yeah, that'll happen.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
Please...enough PSU to ACC talk. First of all, the ACC would have to convince ND to join before it would even make a sliver of sense for PSU to join.
Second, PSU as an institution fits the graduate and research goals of the Big Ten schools better than the ACC, which has more schools focused on undergraduate education or professional graduate schools like law/divinity/literature than they have schools like the Dukes, UMDs, and UNCs. It's not a bad conference, PSU just fits in the Big Ten better as a school. It's not about USNWR rankings to administration and faculty.
One more thought - students going to Penn State don't remember pre-PSU/Big Ten days. I don't remember them and I've been out of school for a while. Hell, they could play Pitt every year as is and won't do it - if playing Pitt in the ACC is a positive, why aren't people from Penn State pissed it isn't happening now?
There isn't this sentimental yearning to get back to their ACC 'roots' from this crowd, even if media types think a land-grant graduate research public school like PSU has more 'roots' in private schools like Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest, Duke and Miami or Southern schools like UNC, Virginia, Clemson, and FSU than they do in public flagship graduate research institutions OSU, MSU, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue....
September 21st, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
Two questions, HS.
1) If PSU were to leave the athletic conference, does that mean leaving the CIC as well?
2 Does the B1G have a buyout?
September 20th, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^
Mizzou is on a quest to become more irrelevant than A & M. Texas A & M had the lead by joining the SEC. Mizzou joined to make sure they don't fall behind.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
Geographically it kinda makes sense...
The Big Ten shouldn't expand. Pretty soon the Pac 16, ACC and SEC will only be able to play one or two games outside of their divisions. I'd rather see the B1G stay static so we can see opponents every couple of years at a max.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^
god damn it
THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE TWO 8 TEAM DIVISIONS, YOU DUMBASSES
September 20th, 2011 at 8:53 PM ^
OK...even if it is a pod system, they still don't play the other teams in the league that often.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:08 PM ^
You play every team in the league within two years with a nine game schedule
4 pods of 4 teams
you play the three teams in your division every year and two teams from the other 3 pods
therefore, in a hypothetical Pac-16 consisting of:
Pod A:
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
OSU
Pod B:
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
ASU
Pod C:
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Pod D:
Washington
WSU
Oregon
Oregon State
Texas plays OU, OSU and TTU ever year
In year one, they play USC, Cal, Arizona, Utah, Washington State and Oregon
In year two they play UCLA, Stanford, Colorado, Arizona State, Washington and Oregone State
the only question is how you determine a champion, but I'm sure they've worked that out without it having leaked
September 20th, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^
B1G will be B16
September 20th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^
Does Missouri actually add anything to the SEC over the amount of money they'll take from their share of the revenues? I'd guess not.
I really think expansion just to expand doesn't really help a conference. If the Big 10 adds WVU or Rutgers, I think it's a net loss. If they add Texas (assuming they're willing to share), ND, or Oklahoma (assuming academics didn't really matter) then it's a huge win. I don't really understand how adding 4 teams to beef up to 16 helps anyone if they aren't the right teams. Adding one so-so team to get to 12 would have made sense for the Big 10 because they could add a title game. What does 14 or 16 get the SEC, Big 10, etc?
September 20th, 2011 at 8:32 PM ^
Exactly. The only reason it works (ed) for the Big East in basketball is because all the teams play each other. There is a true conference champion. Unless you have a 4-round conference playoff in football I don't buy that any champion of a 16-team conference, there's no way to know who the best teams are.
Texas and Oklahoma, I think, would make the B1G even more unrecognizable. So would Syracuse and Rutgers or whoever. Pitt and ND make the most sense but that would suck. Please keep it where it is, Delaney!
September 20th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^
The Pac-12 sounds like it's exploring having 4 pods (or whatever they call them), which essentially sounds like four, four-team divisions. Those four teams would play every year and then play others on a rotating basis. I'm not sure how they'd pick participants in a conference championship game.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^
The NCAA just says that the two teams in the CG need to be the winners of divisions where each team in the division played each other. So, 2 pods would essentially combine to make a division, then they would rotate pods to make divisions the next year. What they could do is say that you play 1 team from each pod each year, so you would play the 3 in your pod, 4 in your paired pod, and 2 from the other two pods making 9 total games.
Another option would be to have pods A and D play pods B and C. Then you could guarantee the best two teams play each other in the championship because if the two best teams are in pods A and B, then your divisions become A/C and B/D. However, this would require 11 games to make it work. This method works a lot better with 12 teams because it would only be 8 games.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:20 PM ^
Yes, I'm thinking it would create a mini playoff.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:59 PM ^
Missouri by themselves is not attractive, but Mizzou + A&M is a net win for the SEC. The B1G would add a similar school to even out if they got ND, otherwise I don't see it happening.
If the SEC ever goes to 16 it will be by poaching teams from the ACC. That prospect may well have motivated the ACC to expand now..
September 20th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
I think expansion matters if you're talking about three or four superconferences establishing a new post season with automatic bids, bowl matchups and post season revenue. You don't want to be the conference that only gets one guaranteed slice of pie while everyone else gets two.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:29 PM ^
Then Miami of Ohio.
Oklahoma is an option, but a bit dark for Delany's taste.
Louisville is probably next on the list, perhaps Houston.
And all because Delany was told to keep the conference running in the red.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:39 PM ^
Cincinnati is a possibility, but they'd have to promise to emphasize the red and downplay the black.
September 21st, 2011 at 8:19 AM ^
You forgot Ball State and SDSU!! 18 teams MOARD B1G skrools!
September 20th, 2011 at 8:34 PM ^
Damn you Texas. I really, really hate you right now. Couldn't you just not destroy the landscape of college football? I hope nobody accepts you into a conference.
Also, I still believe that the B1G won't expand unless it means that they feel it will be necessary to keep pace with BCS bids of the other conferences.