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 9:16 PM ^
Completely agree. The SEC wouldn't care one bit about WVU's media markets if they believed that WVU was a perennial top ten power. This has nothing to do with actual media markets and everything to do with being nationally relevant athletically. South Bend is a tiny market, but they were an elite team and thus matter in Chicago and NYC, just like Michigan, Nebraska, OSU, PSU...
September 20th, 2011 at 9:52 PM ^
then why would the SEC bother with TAMU? Being a perennial powerhouse or having a national following can make up for not having a big media market (like with Nebraska), but having a huge TV market can do just the opposite in terms of success. As WolvinLA correctly points out, it's a bit of both.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
I was responding to your statement saying that
The SEC wants nothing to do with WVU because the state of West Virginia is a giant pile of poo in terms of TV.
Nebraska is an awful state TV wise, yet is the BTN's wet dream. If WVU was good, it would have nothing to do with televisions in West Virginia and everything to do with bars in Chicago and NYC. TAMU isn't a great football team, but people in Texas care about it anyway. ND isn't a good football team at the moment either. Chicago and NYC still care and that's what makes them attractive.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:55 PM ^
for anyone who actually feels threatened by the acc....
September 20th, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
September 20th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^
If a picture is worth 1,000 words then that shot is worth 1,000,000!
Thank you for the shot, effectively ending the debate and definitely winning the thread IMO.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^
That photo's also a good retort to anyone who thinks BC is a good target for the Big 10.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:38 PM ^
Awesome pic. I had forgotten how bad it was. I had discounted OK completely due to academics. I still don't think they're an option, but there may not be another school other than UT or ND that carries fans like OK.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^
September 20th, 2011 at 9:05 PM ^
Our conference should also comprise people who can count the number of schools in our conference
September 20th, 2011 at 9:19 PM ^
Sorry. In my head I've already added Texas and Maryland. I may also be counting MSU three times based on their recruiting dominance. 12 teams in the big 10 makes much more sense.
September 20th, 2011 at 8:58 PM ^
I really dont see the B1G adding anyone...they dont need to.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^
that if the B1G wants to expand it could still take Mizzou or BC or UCONN or Pitt later on.
These are not agreements for life. B1G holds all the cards and can afford to see how it plays out.
Why are people acting like everything is final.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:02 PM ^
Are we going to pay those $20 million buyouts for those ACC schools?
You don't seriously believe they're leaving room to have these things fall apart, do you?
September 20th, 2011 at 9:22 PM ^
B1G schools are making $10M more per year than ACC schools. The buyout's a very easy problem to solve.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^
they're making $22 million per year
so that entire first year goes toward the buyout
not happening
September 20th, 2011 at 9:58 PM ^
If they can earn 5 million more with big ten the break even is 4 years. This is no different than coaches. Heck even foxsports might kick in to stick it to a team on an espn platform.......you just never know. One sponsor over 5 years makes anything possible
If BigTen can add more to the pie by adding subs the income goes up which will be a requirement for any addition.
BTW, some of you people doing mods are way to sensitive and arrogant. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are right. Discussion is not argument.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
c'mon, you're not even trying
September 20th, 2011 at 9:01 PM ^
going to place Auburn and Alabama in separate divisions now?
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Miss State, Alabama, Auburn, LSU
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, So Carolina, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Geographicaly the split would be between Alabama and Auburn. Unless the SEC makes a move for a couple teams more from the East (FSU, Clemson, Miami etc)
To my surprise, Missouri has a pretty stellar record vs the SEC 15-8-3, but have only played 5 since 1984 and all in the last few seasons where they've gone 4-1. The only current SEC they've never played is Tennessee.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:16 PM ^
Auburn said they would be willing to switch divisions.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^
That would be foolish to me - getting rid of the Iron Bowl
September 20th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^
It could function the exact same way the Ohio-Michigan game does at the end of the schedule, a protected crossover game.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:41 PM ^
There already is a protected crossover game in the SEC:
Auburn-Georgia
Alabama-Tennessee
Mississippi-Vanderbilt
LSU-Florida
Mississippi State-Kentucky
Arkansas-South Carolina
September 20th, 2011 at 10:47 PM ^
Right, but who's to say they wouldn't change it if they added teams and put Auburn and Alabama in different divisions? The Iron Bowl is a much bigger rivalry than Alabama-Tenn or Auburn-UGa.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
.....on Missouri's ability to cope in the SEC. They'll easily become the team everyone schedules to pad their record with a "W" in conference play. Way to stand up and ask for an entire conference to give you excruciating wedgies, Missouri.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:13 PM ^
So exactly what Kentucky and Vanderbilt are now (and what Mississippi State will go back to being in a couple years.)
September 20th, 2011 at 9:25 PM ^
Someone on another thread posted a link to an article - possibly in the WallSteet Journal that analyzed expansion based on fan base and $$.
From my short term memory, the article goes into detail as to the football following of various schools and conferences. The Big 10 by a considerable margin was the conference of choice. It had the top three teams: Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State. Nebraska, Wisc and others were in the top 20. Only Northwestern was out of the top 50 (54).
The SEC was next, followed by The Pac ( ). The article states that while the NE has the greatest population, its football following perecentage wise is much less than the other markets. Tha Pac ( ), while have the population numbers, also lacks the interest numbers.
Missouri had like a 1.0M fans, which, based on the Big 10 average, would not add much to the Big 10. Only teams like Texas (with the ESPN baggage), ND and OKLA have the type of following that would be deserving of a Big 10 bid.
The article is a good read. It really puts realignment into perspective and explains why the Big 10 should either stay put or select selectively.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:40 PM ^
It was in the New York Times, or, er, on their blog. But yes, this article is fascinating. http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
September 20th, 2011 at 9:29 PM ^
At least before when we didn't have a true national champion we had tradition and regional rivalries. This realignment is blowing it all to hell IMO. The NCAA takes the cake when it comes to abusing common sense in favor of $$$.
September 20th, 2011 at 9:55 PM ^
what regional rivalries have been killed by this that weren't already dead (like Nebraska-OU) or irrelevant to one of the participants (Texas fans aren't crying over A&M, nor are there many Huskers mourning the loss of Colorado)
September 20th, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^
Mizzou-Kansas. BYU-Utah. Pitt-WVU. May not have typically had national significance, but they were intense rivalries that sold out stadiums between football loving places. I'll miss them.
And the fact that the B12 killed Nebraska-OU goes to show how little these guys know about WHY college football is so popular. They were still in the same conference, and dominated the national title scene as much as M-OSU did in the 70s and 80s and early 90s. And they killed it - and I'm still not sure why.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^
BYU-Utah is still being played every year
Mizzou-Kansas will still be played every year
Pitt-WVU will still be played every year
I agree on the last point. Like I've said, I don't like this shit... but I'm going down with the ship
September 21st, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^
...in September. I'm not such a huge fan of that - but maybe it'll grow on me. I'm not sure if Mizzou really does go to the SEC that they'll play KU every years. As for Pitt-WVU, we'll see if it survives. I'm not positive it will.
I think you can make compelling, early season rivalry games - the Red River Rivalry has happened at the Texas State Fair forever. But for the most part, a rivalry game is better when the whole season leads up to it.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:00 PM ^
They have no control over the conferences. The NCAA controls the bball tourney, which makes them a ton of cash, which is why this is strictly football driven. Conference money and bowl
<br>Money goes to universities, not NCAA.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^
somebody should point out that this was promptly denied by everyone
September 20th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^
Mizzou isn't going anywhere, yet.
The Big 12 still exists, and may continue to exist, because Oklahoma is now making public noise about staying if Beebe is gone and the LHN is reined in.
My guess? The Big 12 "Gang of Four" saw some resistance to their admission from Pac 12 presidents, and realized that maybe they were not going to be so well off there, if they could be admitted at all.
I think the Big 12 survives. I think Mack Brown pleading in the media for it to survive is Texas' way of saving face while stepping back from the precipice, as the LHN gets tamed down.
The Big 12 is that big, boozy, dysfunctional family at holiday time, with all of the fights, anger, insanity, and eventually, the realization dawns on them that they're all they have.
Edit: It is now being reported that the PAC 12 presidents have voted against expansion. I think I was right.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^
The Pac-12 thing came first... the speculation earlier was the Oklahoma knew they didn't have the votes and were trying to find plan B.
Huzzah for the death of expansion
September 20th, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^
I vote Western Michigan, Ryerson University, Malcolm X College, and Capella University to the Big Ten.
September 21st, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
FWIW, ESPN is saying that the SEC denies extending membership to Mizzou.
The Big 12 will probably stay in place, OU will get Beebe's head on a stick, Texas will get to continue making boatloads of cash while saying "screw you guys" and they will probably add BYU and/or WVU depending on if they want to get to 10 or 12.
Also, without seeing numbers, wouldn't it be a good idea for the Big 12 to go after a now possibly-available TCU if they're trying to get back up to 12?
September 21st, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
I don't understand why TCU didn't try to go with the Big 12 anyway. If the Big 12 had dissolved it would have lead to the Big East falling apart too.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
Texas didn't want and still doesn't want TCU. This was their road to having an AQ BCS bid.
September 21st, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
Unless the Big Ten is adding Notre Dame, Texas, and/or Oklahoma and Ok State stay at 12. Rutgers in the Big Ten or Iowa State will add absolutely nothing. Plus it won't add to the conferences prestige.
September 21st, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
Wasn't a good idea the first time, either.