Missouri makes the LEAST sense of any of them. The track coaches already complain about how tough it is for them in the Big 12. They are not a good SEC fit. They would be Vandy #2.
Missouri makes the LEAST sense of any of them. The track coaches already complain about how tough it is for them in the Big 12. They are not a good SEC fit. They would be Vandy #2.
mundus vult decipi wrote:
the Miss. schools are third tier.
Source?
I first heard this a few days ago (it was actually first brought up last year when the Pac 10 expanded and was flirting with Texas and Oklahoma. The regents at A&M at the time did not want to do it, but new regents are in place. There was pressure from the legislature for A&M to stay with Texas to maintain its rivalry.
At the time there was also talk of Texas becoming an independent.
Here is how I think it will play out:
A&M leaves for the SEC because of the Longhorn network as it will give UT even more of an advantage (including $12 million in revenue that it does not have to share).
I think Texas, with its Longhorn Network, will become an independent in football and the Big 12 (now down to 6 teams) has to do something if it wants to stay a league for football. It approaches TCU (although it is about to join the Big East) and approaches Boise State to take it back to 8 teams. It might even give Nebraska a call to come back. It will also call ND although with BYU and Texas as independents, it actually strengthens ND's desire to stay independent.
Boise gets into a conference with an automatic BCS bid and against whom it stands a chance as it only has to beat Oklahoma regularly---and it has shown it can do that on the field. The problem here is that the (aside from Missouri) is sparsely populated so TV money drops without Texas. (If Texas stays it is only because the current AD is pretty loyal guy and it will stay that way for a short period of time).
The SEC will need a 14th team (I do not think it will go to 16). The decision on what teams to add will come down to TV viewers first and foremost as the SEC wants to get back to the top of the heap in terms of TV money---the Pac 12 now sits atop the TV money.
The first call has to be to FSU. However, UF will block that move or try to do so. FSU and the SEC have allegedly talked before. (This should have been done when the SEC expanded by adding SoCar and Ark in 1991---FSU would have been a better addition than either one of those schools).
Missouri could be attractive as it brings viewers from STL, the 21st largest TV market, to go with the 8th (ATL), 13th (Tampa), and 19th (Orlando) markets. (I did not include Miami which is at 16). The other desirable market is DC (9th) but I see no reason VT jumps (as it wins the ACC regularly). (A&M brings some Dallas market at 5th).
Decisions will be made based on TV and football not on track or basketball or anything else. This is going to get interesting again.
I am 99% sure the SEC and the ACC are going to 16 teams. The SEC wants to add two teams to the West (A&M plus Mizzu) and two to the East (FSU and Clemson). They originally approached Georgia Tech who turned them down.
The ACC is exploring the opportunity to expand as well targeting the schools I mentioned earlier. Their main goal is to capture the Pennsylvania Market with some combination of Penn State, Pitt and West Virginia.
bruinboy wrote:
Missouri makes the LEAST sense of any of them. The track coaches already complain about how tough it is for them in the Big 12. They are not a good SEC fit. They would be Vandy #2.
Dude it's not only about track...It's mostly football since it brings in a lot more revenue than track does. And where you got that complaining is beyond me.
Agreed, it's all about the tv football money. But why would the SEC want FSU for that reason? The Fla panhandle tv market is small fries. And it's yet to be seen if FSU will continue to be a football power sans Bowden.
This football-driven realignment is getting ridiculous. Every other sport falls victim to these massive conferences.
Lie lie lie.
mundus vult decipi= the world wants to be deceived so let it be deceived.
I hear Juice Plus is used by all top athletes.
Oh...my bad. I forgot how powerful Missouri was in football. Of course!
ALH359 wrote:
bruinboy wrote:Missouri makes the LEAST sense of any of them. The track coaches already complain about how tough it is for them in the Big 12. They are not a good SEC fit. They would be Vandy #2.
Dude it's not only about track...It's mostly football since it brings in a lot more revenue than track does. And where you got that complaining is beyond me.
mundus vult decipi wrote:
The ACC is exploring the opportunity to expand as well targeting the schools I mentioned earlier. Their main goal is to capture the Pennsylvania Market with some combination of Penn State, Pitt and West Virginia.
Why would Penn State ever go to the ACC? Huge step backwards.
The fact is the SEC is the baddest effin' conference in sports. Look at the number of championships over the past few years. We own the BCS. You Big Ten/Eleven now Twelve fans might not like but that doesn't matter. It's a fact.
We'll do whatever we want and the rest of you bitch conferences will fall in line.
Come on... wrote:
Why would Penn State ever go to the ACC? Huge step backwards.
I could answer this three ways:
(1) Correctly: I have no idea. I am just reporting what I am being told.
(2) Honestly: The ACC will need to replace the loss of FSU with another football "powerhouse."
(3) Bluntly: Sure because the Big Ten is so relevant. Tell me again why they matter in any sport? With OSU fallen from grace, they are the third (or fourth) best football conference and the Big Ten is a wasteland of basketball talent outside of MSU. In almost every sport, the ACC would be a huge step up for Penn State.
The Big 12 is a dead horse and Texas has to end up somewhere...
In the next few years I think we'll see Texas go to the PAC 10 (now 12).
After Texas bolts we'll see the Big 12 completely dissolve. I can see Iowa St in the Big 10, maybe even Kansas bringing the Big 10 to 14 teams. Then maybe Texas Tech following Texas bringing the Pac-10/12 to 14 teams.
Eventually we'll see 16 team conferences: Former Pac 10, Former Big 10, ACC, Big East.
I can see the Big East being changed around due to a lack of football schools. It looks like the conference presidents want 16 team conferences for football.
Alan
Conferences are meaningless anyway.
Your comment about Big Ten basketball is laughable. In fact, the Big Ten is has probably been the deepest conference as of late. I would only put them behind the ACC and even that conference has really only been propped up by Duke and UNC lately, with a few decent FSU teams. In the last decade MSU, OSU, Illinois and Indiana all made the final four. MSU, OSU and Illinois made the championship game. Wisconsin and Purdue made the final four in the late 90's as well.
MSU, OSU, Illinois, Wisconsin and Purdue are continually churing out strong teams. Michigan is on the rise again and came close to knocking off #1 seed Duke last season. Penn St. would probably be more of a contender in the ACC for basketball. They've never risen above mid-level in the B10 basketball wise.
of course this guy is wrong because the big east is the best at basketball (though worst in football). but i think the big ten has been better than the acc at basketball the last couple years. after all they did win the big ten acc challenge both of those years as well.
and that other guy is way off base about big ten football. with nebraska the big ten is now solidly in the top two football conferences. the SEC is probably better as much as that pains me to say (although we have held our own in bowl games over the last decade). secondly unless some crazy harsh penalties come down in the next couple of weeks OSU is not going anywhere. Pryor is gone but he would have been gone at the end of the season anyways. if they survive the first 5 games with either 0 or 1 loss they will again be a top 10 team, something the acc hasn't had in quite some time.
You're right. I wasn't thinking of the Big East. Probably because most of this thread was discussing football so I forgot about them. But the B10 being a "wasteland" in bball comment was just silly.
On that note, Im not picking as many Big East teams to make it far next year in the tournament next tournament. I have for the last few years and they always disappoint and my bracket gets ruined. Im thinking of teams like Pitt, Notre Dame and Georgetown that love to choke.
mundus vult decipi wrote:
I am 99% sure the SEC and the ACC are going to 16 teams. The SEC wants to add two teams to the West (A&M plus Mizzu) and two to the East (FSU and Clemson). They originally approached Georgia Tech who turned them down.
The ACC is exploring the opportunity to expand as well targeting the schools I mentioned earlier. Their main goal is to capture the Pennsylvania Market with some combination of Penn State, Pitt and West Virginia.
IS that 99% this year or in 20 years?
Are you talking about Tech being "originally" approached, are you talking 1991? (Tech was a charter member of the SEC).
Penn state is not going to leave the Big Ten. Pitt does not bring a lot--private school with a pretty small fan base--it is another Miami and WVU brings very few PA TV sets.
The ACC expansion has not been as great as it thought it would be partly because Miami has not been "Miami" and BC does not seem to be bringing much to the table. It has worked well for VT--winning several conference titles although it would have done that in the Big East as well.
SEC says no to the Aggies. That is hilarious. Oh those aggies! They were so happy to finally be in the news and now they are shunned.