Simple. Tulane took a polysomnograph. It indicates that they are deep into their REM state.
So they are, by any objective measure, sleeping.
The giant bit? I can't help you with that.
WVU vs The Big East....getting ugly
- Thread starter isuno1fan
- Start date
Simple. Tulane took a polysomnograph. It indicates that they are deep into their REM state.
So they are, by any objective measure, sleeping.
The giant bit? I can't help you with that.
I agree with ISUFan22...it's splitting hairs when debating the motives for conference expansion. Every conference is doing it for the same reason: they believe adding teams is in their own best interest.
I don't think there are any "villians" in this deal. One person's villian is another person's savior. If a conference is convinced that they can make more for their schools by adding a team that wants to join, then those conference adminstrations are NOT doing their jobs by standing pat.
The Big East members signed an agreement to establish a 27-month waiting period. The Big 12 members didn't. But if they had, don't you think the conference would enforce the waiting period on Missouri or TAMU? I think they would.
I do agree with you on one thing: I think that if WVU can't join next year, then the TV networks cut a deal with the Big 12 to maintain the contracts. Fox will find the inventory for 2012...both sides want this deal to work.
I would agree that schools are doing it to further their best interests, but that doesn't mean they're doing it for the same reason.
If you and I are sitting here with more than enough food to feed ourselves, but you steal half of my food with the idea that "I can always make use of more" and you know full well that I'm going to starve, when we both had plenty of food to be happy and healthy, do you not see something wrong with that?
The Pac-12 and Big 10 were just trying to get to 12 teams and have a conference title game, BUT they were making PLENTY of money as it was. There was no need for either league to expand. They expanded to make even more money. In order to do this, they nearly killed another league. When something might slightly be in one person's best interest, but to another's massive detriment, isn't there an issue there?
The SEC was even worse. They had absolutely no need to add 2 teams. They could have sat tight at 12 rolling in the cash forever. They made a move intended to destroy the Big 12 for reasons that don't even really make sense. There was room for all of these leagues to continue to be wildly successful, viable operations.
The Big 12's plucking of teams has been solely about survival. The Big 12 needed to fill a gap. The Big 10/Pac 12/SEC didn't need anything.
The obvious villian in all of this is the SEC. They didn't like the fact that the P12's new TV deal significantly exceeded their own and the only way for the SEC to "get out" of their current unfavorable long-term deal was to poach the B12 for new markets that Aggy and Mizzou provided. Since Aggy and Mizzou were both overly sensitive (and wrongly so) to everything that is Bevo, the SEC found two willing crybaby partners that will both regret their moves over the long term.
I cut the Big 10 a little bit more slack than the other two conferences. The Big 10's primary goal was to finally reel in Notre Dame, which wouldn't have hurt anybody. Yes, going for a 12th team that wasn't ND had a lot to do with the money generated by additional BTN subscribers and a championship game, but it also was about fixing their goofy 11-team set-up. Adding Nebraska to the conference made money and made sense, but it wasn't a move made to become or remain the dominant big-dog conference. That is definitely what the Pac-12 and SEC moves were all about.
Adding ND would have been great, and I agree that the Big 10 wasn't interested in destroying other leagues. Well, DeLaney probably was, but the presidents weren't. Also, the Big 10's goofy 11 team set up worked for 2 decades and was actually helping them get teams into the BCS. I can see wanting 12 and all that, but its not like they needed it. It's not like the Big 10 was in a precarious place and had to act or suffer harm.
Larry Scott is hell bent on blowing up college football and has been foiled by everyone around him. Adding 12 teams made sense for them, and was done without destroying other leagues.
The SEC is the prime example of rampant greed in all of this. They had 12 teams and a CCG. They were the most dominant on the field conference. They had a boat load of money. They did not need to add anyone. The ACC moves don't make much sense to me either. Congrats, you have 14 teams and are still as mediocre as ever.
I think the ACC move was pure survival. Syracuse and Pitt were added on the assumption that the SEC or someone else would be poaching at least two of their teams in the next 2-3 years.
I think the ACC will be able to hang onto their schools. For some reason there's some loyalty to that ball of mediocrity. But you could be right.
I think (in addition to being instant replacements for potential losses) adding those 2 teams also helped reassure existing ACC teams that mightve considered leaving that their conference would be stable long-term so they didnt need to worry that if they didnt jump, they might be left holding the bag if someone else did.
They're basketball schools. Unlike the Big East, they play football, and sometimes are actually good at it (FSU, Miami). But basketball is what they are.
If Kentucky were to ever leave the SEC (they won't), their natural home would be the ACC...the only conference that takes basketball as seriously as they do.
The ACC added two schools for the same reason as the SEC, they now have a bad TV deal compared to the P12's new TV deal and adding two schools gave them an opportunity to renegotiate. It will be interesting to see how much more ESPN gives to the SEC and ACC for their expanded leagues. It may not be as much as the SEC and ACC hoped for since ESPN now has the leverage.
With the B12's new Tier 1 deal coming up, if the B12 thinks ESPN screwed them over by paying the SEC to poach Aggy and Mizzou, the best way for the B12 to react would be to say bye-bye to ESPN and move the Tier 1 FB deal to NBC (hopefully with ND) as well as MBB. NBC and their new NBC Sports Net (now Versus) is dying for new content and likely would be willing to pay a premium for ND and B12 FB/MBB inventory.
In all reality the SEC's move in an attempt to kill the Big XII makes perfect sense. The Big XII is as strong in football as the SEC and this season was continuing to get stronger while the SEC has 2 great teams and 10 mediocre to poor teams. If you had an opportunity to kill the only competition that is on the same level or soon to be a level above you wouldn't you take it? They found 2 easy marks in A&M and Mizzou who are the whiny ******* who always complained that the Big XII Conference didn't treat them fairly (excuse for their lack of success since the Big XII formed). It was a simple and smart plan. Mizzou and A&M were so mad at their perception of unfair dealings with the Big XII that they would sign their own death certificates and do it with a smile on their face.
The SEC's goal in all of this was to kill off by their own perception a weakened Big XII. It didn't work and now they will have to deal with Mizzou and A&M and all of the baggage that those two idiot filled fan bases bring. The SEC membership is all for it as they see nothing but 2 easy wins being added to their schedule. The Big XII on the other hand will have won in a big way if they can get WVU into the Big XII next year. The SEC took out the garbage for the Big XII and the Big XII gets to replace them with last years Rose Bowl Champion and the annual Big East representative to the BCS in West Virginia.
SEC grades in this process...
Diabolical planning - A+
Recruiting 2 schools willing to implode their football programs to kill the Big XII - A+
Killing the Big XII - F
Adding 2 quality programs to the SEC - C-
Adding value to the SEC by bringing in 2 new teams - D+
Adding 2 quality fan bases that will travel and fill the stands at bowl games...
1. Mizzou - F
2. A&M - B+
Adding 2 quality recruiting regions to the SEC...
1. Missouri - F
2. Texas - B-
Overall... the SEC's ultimate goal to kill the Big XII backfired.
Last edited:
I disagree with the bold. If the Big 10 had 10 or 12 teams they still would have had 2 teams in the BCS. The BCS has nothing to do with accomplishments but who will travel, that is all. The Big 10 has a huge population and alumni base, most of the big dog schools will travel so the Sugar Bowl wins out by taking Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St/Wisconsin/Nebraska any time. Any time the Big 10 only gets one team in the BCS it is an epic fail by their conference since they would not have 2 teams in the qualifying pool.
Wow...I don't even know where to begin on this one...
1. The Big 12 can destroy itself just fine on its own, without help from anybody else.
2. The SEC and the Big 12 don't compete for the same viewers. They're not in the same region and they're on (mostly) different networks. How does the SEC benefit from the Big 12's demise? Will more people watch their games on CBS? There aren't many people that LIVE in the Big 12, outside of Texas. Does the SEC really covet the Kansas and Iowa markets?
3. I think it's pretty clear that the SEC's goal was to generate enough inventory to support a BTN-style conference network, and renegotiate the TV revenue deals with CBS and ESPN. Done and done.
4. I appreciate all of the work you went to assigning letter grades, but these aren't the primary reasons for SEC expansion. There's a reason that only the Big 12 and Big East have been taken to the brink of extinction multiple times over the past 24 months. The Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, and ACC will do what they want, and the Big 12 and the Big East will adapt. Nobody's looking to wreck the Big 12 anymore than they want to wreck the Big East, Mountain West, or Conf. USA. They'll just use them for expansion.
The only reason the Big XII was targeted was for the simple fact that teams with name recognition nationally like A&M and Nebraska wanted out because they couldn't compete in the Big XII. They made this very clear. The SEC didn't have many options outside of Mizzou to get to 14 because nobody else was interested. That left their options at Mizzou or some mid-major football school. Congratulations to you and the Tigers... you are more highly sought after then Central Florida, Tulane, Florida Atlantic, FIU, Arkansas State, etc... better put that one in your media guide.
I don't really see the Big 12 and SEC as "business competitors" where one has to prosper at the other's failures.
That's why it's so odd that the SEC was hell bent on killing it.
That's why it's so odd that the SEC was hell bent on killing it.
Competition for viewers, competition for media coverage, competition for hype, competition for recruits, etc...
Each conference is selling a brand. Based on the ego of the SEC commissioner he probably looks at the Big XII tv deal on the basis that every dollar going to the Big XII is a dollar of revenue that the SEC is missing out on. The Big XII was also a few years away from renewing their tier 1 tv deal with ESPN. So... if you can grab a couple of Big XII teams right now it sets you up to renegotiate the current SEC deal with ESPN and if the Big XII implodes and is gone ESPN now has a boatload of cash with nothing to spend it on. Now the SEC can "shop" around with other networks to force ESPN to overpay to keep the SEC on the ESPN networks. This also potentially opens the door for the SEC to try and grab schools like Oklahoma and Texas whom they would never be able to get their hands on without the Big XII's collapse. How valuable does the SEC become as a 16 or 18 team Super Conference with potentially adding some combination of OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech, etc...??
The amount of money that could generate would be off the charts.
The concept Mizzoulander is missing is that none of these things are possible without the SEC grabbing 2 Big XII teams and putting the Big XII on the brink of collapse. Mizzou and A&M just happened to be the low hanging fruit that Mike Slive knew he could easily get his hands on at the time. Obviously if Slive could have his choice of any 2 Big XII teams it wouldn't be A&M or Mizzou but sometimes you have to hit the bargain bin to put yourself in the position to get the ones you really wanted down the road.
People want to watch the SEC...
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/12/08/2011-%e2%80%9csec-on-cbs%e2%80%9d-scores-highest-rating-of-any-college-football-television-package-for-third-consecutive-year/113178/
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mizzoulander
The only reason the Big XII was targeted was for the simple fact that teams with name recognition nationally like A&M and Nebraska wanted out because they couldn't compete in the Big XII. They made this very clear. The SEC didn't have many options outside of Mizzou to get to 14 because nobody else was interested. That left their options at Mizzou or some mid-major football school. Congratulations to you and the Tigers... you are more highly sought after then Central Florida, Tulane, Florida Atlantic, FIU, Arkansas State, etc... better put that one in your media guide.
(I'm going to regret replying to this...I just know it.) :smile:
Nothing that you are saying matches up with ANYTHING that has been made public about the realignment process.
1. The Big 12 is not the SEC's competitor...the Big 10 is (and to a lesser extent, the ACC, because of proximity). Not because they don't have great football in the Big 12 (they do), but because there are no people there. Nobody follows the Big 12 outside of Texas and the Great Plains. But there are more people that care about SEC and Big 10 football than anywhere else - even when the Big 10 is weak. There's a reason why the Big 12's TV deals always lagged behind everyone else's.
2. It makes Big 12 fans all giddy to think their conference withstood a kill shot from the mighty SEC, but that's not how it went down. If the goal was to destroy the Big 12, they would take OU and OKSt. and watch the tent collapse. If the goal is to maximize revenue, take 2 different schools from higher population states that are willing to join. The SEC was so gun-shy about NOT looking like they destroyed the Big 12 that they put TAMU and MU into a holding pattern until everyone was sure the Big 12 would hold together (and wouldn't start suing everyone.)
3. Show me ANY data that suggests that Big 12 games (outside of the RRS) draw as many viewers as comparable games from the SEC or Big 10. Destroying the Big 12 doesn't gain the SEC any viewers...folks there will still watch Texas, Oklahoma, or whomever in whatever conference they play in.
4. NEBRASKA couldn't compete in the Big 12?! This is where your post really goes off the rails. And the SEC couldn't find anyone besides Missouri? How about WVU? They wanted the SEC even more than Mizzou did (if that's possible.) Don't think that West Virginia wouldn't sue the Big 12 too if it meant getting into the SEC as #15 or #16.
You think that because the Big 12 has produced several teams that have played in the NCG recently, that makes them an elite conference that viewers care about nationally. I'd argue that national viewers only see UT/OU, and view the rest of the conference as an afterthought. We're flyover country, and none of the remaining teams have enough sustained success to make more than a blip on the national map.
While it may be true that the SEC wasn't implicitly looking to break up the BIG XII, I think it could be reasoned that they would likely have the most to gain from such an event.
And it could have been that break up that they had hoped would happen based upon how chips may have fallen after that was done.
If you think that Texas A&M and Missouri were #1 and #2 on the SEC membership committee wish list, then you clearly think WVU was #1 on the Big XII list.
#1 and #2 were most likely Texas and Oklahoma. And I would guess that they still are.
If you look at the set-up, the SEC would love Texas, taking A&M gives them a soft landing spot politically if the XII ever falls apart and independence isn't an option. This landing spot is nice because they can talk about how they get to be back together with A&M and join a good conference. Geographically this fit works better than any other conference. It just ties up loose ends all around really. For OU this makes sense too, now at this point the SEC couldn't take OSU but this may be what OU would want anyways in this perfect future. Also OU could get to throw in the geographical pulls and history with rivals all around it if it went SEC.
(sad note to think of here... If OU/OSU would be required as a package deal, could the SEC kick out another member with less history or performance if needed? I would hope for Missouri's sake that there is some language in their deal that guarantees them a home. I don't know how kicking a team out works exactly, but look at SEC history, it's been done)
If the conference landscape keeps shifting, I still see something like was being predicted earlier this year. 4 conferences leading the charge based upon reasonable history/geography. In that landscape, OU and Texas join the SEC.
And please Missourilander, don't kid yourself MISSOURI was NEVER choice #1, let alone choice #2. they realistically were somewhere between 5 and 10. the other ones just didn't work out. But hey congrats, glad to see they got hitched.
And it could have been that break up that they had hoped would happen based upon how chips may have fallen after that was done.
If you think that Texas A&M and Missouri were #1 and #2 on the SEC membership committee wish list, then you clearly think WVU was #1 on the Big XII list.
#1 and #2 were most likely Texas and Oklahoma. And I would guess that they still are.
If you look at the set-up, the SEC would love Texas, taking A&M gives them a soft landing spot politically if the XII ever falls apart and independence isn't an option. This landing spot is nice because they can talk about how they get to be back together with A&M and join a good conference. Geographically this fit works better than any other conference. It just ties up loose ends all around really. For OU this makes sense too, now at this point the SEC couldn't take OSU but this may be what OU would want anyways in this perfect future. Also OU could get to throw in the geographical pulls and history with rivals all around it if it went SEC.
(sad note to think of here... If OU/OSU would be required as a package deal, could the SEC kick out another member with less history or performance if needed? I would hope for Missouri's sake that there is some language in their deal that guarantees them a home. I don't know how kicking a team out works exactly, but look at SEC history, it's been done)
If the conference landscape keeps shifting, I still see something like was being predicted earlier this year. 4 conferences leading the charge based upon reasonable history/geography. In that landscape, OU and Texas join the SEC.
And please Missourilander, don't kid yourself MISSOURI was NEVER choice #1, let alone choice #2. they realistically were somewhere between 5 and 10. the other ones just didn't work out. But hey congrats, glad to see they got hitched.
No question...two things worked in Missouri's favor for getting into the SEC:
1. Thirteen is an odd number, and hard to build a schedule around
2. There is no "Missouri State" that is attached at the hip to Mizzou
That (and the TV markets) got Missouri into the SEC. Not the tradition, and not the competitive value.
If you're only adding one team, then obviously OU > MU. But if you can't add OU without OKSt., then from both a financial and an academic standpoint TAMU/MU > OU/OKSt. The only school Missouri that beat out head-to-head for SEC #14 was West Virginia.
