Mizzou to SEC "inevitable and imminent"

[agrabes]

Well done, exactly right. The only reason Oklahoma and Texas want this now is because they no longer have options.

Oklahoma can't go to the Pac 10 with Oklahoma State dragging it down. Door slammed shut, otherwise Oklahoma was GONE.

Texas can't go anywhere with Longhorn Network and Texas Tech dragging it down. Doors slammed shut, otherwise Texas was GONE.

They now know they can't go anywhere else, so they want to remove that option for all other schools, too. The message to Iowa State and others is: we have to stay, so you do, too. And Missouri, said, uh no, we have options, so F you.

And you know all this because??

I think it's pretty clear that in 2010 the six teams were strongly considering leaving for the PAC. It was all lined up to go, but they took a moment to think about it and realized that the Big 12 was a better conference for them.

The Aggies did not want to go to the PAC and preferred the SEC. There were rumblings even then that they did not want to stay in the conference and where there was smoke there was fire. As we've seen, statements came out that even while they said they were committed to the Big 12 they had already planned to leave for the SEC.

Look at the teams who left in 2010: Colorado who had already tried to go to the PAC in the 90s' and Nebraska who left due to the (at the time) vastly greater money available in the Big 10. Both moves made geographic sense.

Fast forward to 2011. The Aggies come up with a poor excuse to claim they were wronged and decide to bolt for the SEC. As we know, they had a chance to be in on the Longhorn Network as a joint UT-ATM network and declined it. Texas even relented on all the controversial parts of the Longhorn Network which A&M had objected to. This causes instability in the league again. I don't know if rebeccacy is right or wrong, or if he has any inside information at all. I'm inclined to believe he does have at least some information, but probably not at the highest levels. Either way, I believe that UT & OU remained committed to the Big 12 for the same reasons they stayed the last time: it's a great league where all their traditional rivals are, they don't want to be in a league with 4-5 national championship contenders who would beat each other up, and the money is good enough here.

As far as Missouri goes, I honestly don't know. I'd prefer they stayed, but I believe the Big 12 is on the right track again. We are now in a position where BCS conference quality teams want to come in to our conference. I don't think that can be understated.

 

[dtISU]

A break from the madness!

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm47/GuruSY/Chriqui.gif

The very definition of awesomeness!

 

[Klubber]

If you think that extension of the rights will not be part of the new ABC deal, then you are crazy. ABC will require it. We will not be going though this again for that very reason.

Also, UT does NOT want to leave Big 12. That is evident.

OU does not want to go to SEC. Why would they want to go to tougher conference for less money (once they have their own TV deal)?

Agree. And I don't think that OU wanted to really join the Pac 12 either. I think both of those schools were in a game of chicken, with OU simply wanting Texas to make concessions, and they did. I think the media making it sound like Larry Scott pulled the offer at the last minute to OU and the other Big XII schools is complete BS.

As I understand it, on the Sunday when OU and Texas announced plans to stay with the Big XII, Scott had been frantically trying to reach them and was ignored. So, he trots out a press release saying the Pac 12 is no longer interested in expansion to save face. The reality is Scott was played like cheap hooker IMO.

 

[isuno1fan]

Between your avatar and this, you sir, are my favorite poster no matter what your posts consist of.:biggrin:

Yep I'm in total agreement! Keep that up and you'll be getting rep just as often as I can throw it your way!

 

[alarson]

As we know, they had a chance to be in on the Longhorn Network as a joint UT-ATM network and declined it.

This isnt entirely true. From A&M sources they were offered a substantially smaller piece of that network. Something like a 75/25 revenue split iirc. Putting up funds for not much perceived return on investment, plus a bit of an insulting offer.

A&M wasnt willing to put up funds for something like that, especially when the value for that content wasnt thought to be that much. The actual content still isnt worth that much really, and you see no one else getting those kinds of deals for that reason. There's one reason Texas got that deal- to shut down the chance of a conference network, something that would either be more costly for ESPN (if they paid for it) or would allow Fox more presence in the college sports marke

 

[CyDude16]

Go back to Tigerboard if you want to use Tigerboard logic. We here on CF actually use real logic.

You obviously forgot the sarcasm pirate.

 

[Mizzoulander]

I think it's pretty clear that in 2010 the six teams were strongly considering leaving for the PAC. It was all lined up to go, but they took a moment to think about it and realized that the Big 12 was a better conference for them.

As far as Missouri goes, I honestly don't know. I'd prefer they stayed, but I believe the Big 12 is on the right track again. We are now in a position where BCS conference quality teams want to come in to our conference. I don't think that can be understated.

I don't know...maybe. UT and OU haven't flirted with another conference in about 6 weeks. That's an eternity in conference realignment time.

Really, the only BCS teams interested in the Big 12 are those from the Big East - a weaker, less-stable conference. And the most desirable schools from the Big East (Pitt, Syr.) are looking to join the ACC. The rest will take any offer that keeps their AQ status. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

It's funny...if you happen upon the WVU board, their fans are the mirror image of Missouri a few weeks ago: debating whether they should take an offer to join a less-familiar conference (in this case, the Big 12) or wait it out in an unstable one (Big East) while waiting for the invite to the league they wanted initally (SEC or ACC).

Sounds familiar.

 

[Cydwinder]

I don't know...maybe. UT and OU haven't flirted with another conference in about 6 weeks. That's an eternity in conference realignment time.

Really, the only BCS teams interested in the Big 12 are those from the Big East - a weaker, less-stable conference. And the most desirable schools from the Big East (Pitt, Syr.) are looking to join the ACC. The rest will take any offer that keeps their AQ status. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

It's funny...if you happen upon the WVU board, their fans are the mirror image of Missouri a few weeks ago: debating whether they should take an offer to join a less-familiar conference (in this case, the Big 12) or wait it out in an unstable one (Big East) while waiting for the invite to the league they wanted initally (SEC or ACC).

Sounds familiar.

WVU has no where near the history with the other BE schools, especially now that Pitt is gone, that Mizzou has with Big 12 schools. WVU also could move to a conference that is seen as much stronger in football and drastically increase TV revenues. Mizzou has none of those to debate.
The situations are not as similar as you make them out to be.

 

[benjay]

Nothing is "inevitable" in realignment until the contracts are signed.

 

[HoopsTournament]

WVU has no where near the history with the other BE schools, especially now that Pitt is gone, that Mizzou has with Big 12 schools. WVU also could move to a conference that is seen as much stronger in football and drastically increase TV revenues. Mizzou has none of those to debate.
The situations are not as similar as you make them out to be.

Mizzoulander uses Tigerboard logic. It has infested a majority of Mizzou fans and even some not-so-Mizzou fans. They will rationalize this move from every angle and act like it is a no-brainer.

Their biggest buzzword is instability. They like to use it as "evidence" that there is no way the Big 12 will survive.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Mizzoulander uses Tigerboard logic. It has infested a majority of Mizzou fans and even some not-so-Mizzou fans. They will rationalize this move from every angle and act like it is a no-brainer.

Their biggest buzzword is instability. They like to use it as "evidence" that there is no way the Big 12 will survive.

Lemme break out some "Tigerboard Logic" (whatever that is):

There were only 3 types of schools in the old Big 12:

1. Those with options to join another conference (NU, CU, MU, TAMU, OU, etc.)
2. Those WITHOUT options (KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor)
3. Texas

In the last 18 months, EVERY school with options has either left the conference, is in the process of doing so, or has explored the possibility. Are they all irrational? Making a strictly emotional move? If ISU had the opportunity to leave the Big 12, they should and they would have.

Hoops believes that those schools with options are responsible for the instability (by leaving or threatening to leave). Now that UT and OU were rejected/opted not to join the Pac-12, their interests are now completely aligned with the remaining conference members. Long live the new Big 12.

I believe that the lack of a sustainable conference structure since 1996 is responsible (something that is everyone's fault) and that UT or OU will continue to look at other options and eventually leave the conference in the next several years. The day UT or OU is left out of the BCS championship because the computers say their schedule is weak will be the last day of the Big 12 conference.

Two things are certain: one of us will be proven correct, and the other really won't care at that point.

 

[ISUAgronomist]

 

[Cydwinder]

Lemme break out some "Tigerboard Logic" (whatever that is):

There were only 3 types of schools in the old Big 12:

1. Those with options to join another conference (NU, CU, MU, TAMU, OU, etc.)
2. Those WITHOUT options (KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor)
3. Texas

In the last 18 months, EVERY school with options has either left the conference, is in the process of doing so, or has explored the possibility. Are they all irrational? Making a strictly emotional move? If ISU had the opportunity to leave the Big 12, they should and they would have.

Hoops believes that those schools with options are responsible for the instability (by leaving or threatening to leave). Now that UT and OU were rejected/opted not to join the Pac-12, their interests are now completely aligned with the remaining conference members. Long live the new Big 12.

I believe that the lack of a sustainable conference structure since 1996 is responsible (something that is everyone's fault) and that UT or OU will continue to look at other options and eventually leave the conference in the next several years. The day UT or OU is left out of the BCS championship because the computers say their schedule is weak will be the last day of the Big 12 conference.

Two things are certain: one of us will be proven correct, and the other really won't care at that point.

So you're saying you're leaving the conference to make it weaker so Texas or OU gets jobbed by BCS? Mizzou has it really good in the Big 12 right now. Going to the SEC would be athletic suicide.

 

[Die4Cy]

Lemme break out some "Tigerboard Logic" (whatever that is):

There were only 3 types of schools in the old Big 12:

1. Those with options to join another conference (NU, CU, MU, TAMU, OU, etc.)
2. Those WITHOUT options (KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor)
3. Texas

In the last 18 months, EVERY school with options has either left the conference, is in the process of doing so, or has explored the possibility. Are they all irrational? Making a strictly emotional move? If ISU had the opportunity to leave the Big 12, they should and they would have.

Hoops believes that those schools with options are responsible for the instability (by leaving or threatening to leave). Now that UT and OU were rejected/opted not to join the Pac-12, their interests are now completely aligned with the remaining conference members. Long live the new Big 12.

I believe that the lack of a sustainable conference structure since 1996 is responsible (something that is everyone's fault) and that UT or OU will continue to look at other options and eventually leave the conference in the next several years. The day UT or OU is left out of the BCS championship because the computers say their schedule is weak will be the last day of the Big 12 conference.

Two things are certain: one of us will be proven correct, and the other really won't care at that point.

 

[Yes13]

Lemme break out some "Tigerboard Logic" (whatever that is):

There were only 3 types of schools in the old Big 12:

1. Those with options to join another conference (NU, CU, MU, TAMU, OU, etc.)
2. Those WITHOUT options (KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor)
3. Texas

In the last 18 months, EVERY school with options has either left the conference, is in the process of doing so, or has explored the possibility. Are they all irrational? Making a strictly emotional move? If ISU had the opportunity to leave the Big 12, they should and they would have.

Hoops believes that those schools with options are responsible for the instability (by leaving or threatening to leave). Now that UT and OU were rejected/opted not to join the Pac-12, their interests are now completely aligned with the remaining conference members. Long live the new Big 12.

I believe that the lack of a sustainable conference structure since 1996 is responsible (something that is everyone's fault) and that UT or OU will continue to look at other options and eventually leave the conference in the next several years. The day UT or OU is left out of the BCS championship because the computers say their schedule is weak will be the last day of the Big 12 conference.

Two things are certain: one of us will be proven correct, and the other really won't care at that point.

I doubt that will ever happen. Maybe an Oklahoma State gets 'left out' but the MNC will likely always somehow end up with Texas/OU on top if they are undefeated. Even if the Big 12 falls behind the Big 10 or Pac 12 (which is unlikely).

Is Wisconsin going to leave the Big 10 when they get left out this year?

 

[Peter]

So you're saying you're leaving the conference to make it weaker so Texas or OU gets jobbed by BCS? Mizzou has it really good in the Big 12 right now. Going to the SEC would be athletic suicide.

According to the BCS computers (whatever that is worth) the Big XII is the best conference in the country. Moving to the SEC would be a lateral move both financially and for football. Missouri would probably have a much easier time in other sports like basketball. The only way I think Missouri becomes less competitive in the SEC would be through the loss of their primary recruiting grounds (Texas). As much as we would all like to see Missouri become Alabama's *****, I don't think it will happen. They will be a consistent top 25 school in either conference.

 

[Die4Cy]

I doubt that will ever happen. Maybe an Oklahoma State gets 'left out' but the MNC will likely always somehow end up with Texas/OU on top if they are undefeated. Even if the Big 12 falls behind the Big 10 or Pac 12 (which is unlikely).

Is Wisconsin going to leave the Big 10 when they get left out this year?

Don't even bother. He's infected. A goner.

 

[Cydwinder]

I doubt that will ever happen. Maybe an Oklahoma State gets 'left out' but the MNC will likely always somehow end up with Texas/OU on top if they are undefeated. Even if the Big 12 falls behind the Big 10 or Pac 12 (which is unlikely).

Is Wisconsin going to leave the Big 10 when they get left out this year?

So what you're saying is Wisconsin to the Big 12?

 

[Yes13]

According to the BCS computers (whatever that is worth) the Big XII is the best conference in the country. Moving to the SEC would be a lateral move both financially and for football. Missouri would probably have a much easier time in other sports like basketball. The only way I think Missouri becomes less competitive in the SEC would be through the loss of their primary recruiting grounds (Texas). As much as we would all like to see Missouri become Alabama's *****, I don't think it will happen. They will be a consistent top 25 school in either conference.

That and the fact that Mizzou probably reached their peak as a program. They were making some good ground in Texas recruiting, they were close to getting to that Oklahoma State/A&M level of recruiting. Now they are probably going to drop down a peg to the Baylor level/probably below in Texas, and now will have to recruit in Arkansas and Florida where they will be behind Arkansas, and Pretty much the whole SEC not named UK, Miss State, Vandy in Florida as well as being behind Miami, Florida State, Clemson, maybe even Georgia Tech and UNC.

 

[Mizzoulander]

So you're saying you're leaving the conference to make it weaker so Texas or OU gets jobbed by BCS? Mizzou has it really good in the Big 12 right now. Going to the SEC would be athletic suicide.

NO! I'm not saying that at all...I could care less what happens to them after Mizzou leaves. All I'm saying is that the competitive level of the Big 12 makes a difference in what UT and OU decide to do. The teams that have left (NU, CU, TAMU, MU) make up something like 50% of ALL division winners represented in the conference championship game since 1996. Most of the remaining teams (KU, ISU, BU, TTU, OKST) have NEVER been to the CCG. So far the Big 12 has replaced them with...TCU.

I am NOT saying that Missouri isn't replaceable from a competition standpoint...of course they are. What I'm saying is that replacing those 4 teams with remnants of the Big East (a conference we've ALL derided as the weakest in the BCS for many years) is not going to maintain the Big 12 as #1 or #2 in conference strength.

Athletic suicide? We've played in the Big 12 for 15 years - I wouldn't say that the SEC is THAT much stronger as a conference. You think Mizzou is going to get crushed by LSU, Alabama, and Florida? You're probably right (we've only beaten UT and OU, like, three times in the Big 12). You think we're going to get our ***** handed to us by Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee EVERY single year? I'd say that's a stretch. You think we're going to get consistently rolled against Vandy, Kentucky, and Miss. St.? Not freaking likely.

Not because Mizzou's some kind of juggernaut...we're not. But the SEC is like every other conference; it has its heavyweights, its middle-of-the-road teams, and its doormats. In the Big 12, we've done pretty well against the middle and the doormats. I don't think the strength gap between the Big 12 and the SEC is as wide as, say, the gap between the MWC and the Big 12. Yet nobody believes TCU is about to commit suicide.