What about those 5 + Louisville ?

gives you WV, KY, Va, NC, SC, Ga, and FL !

Need to pull one of the other 9 into that Eastern Division (probably Iowa State).

I've been thinking about the whole NCSU to the SEC speculation and I just don't see how it brings in the N.C. market especially if say, the Big Ten, adds Duke and UNC to pair with UVA and Maryland.

For the Big 12 I would think they would want to double the FL market and they can do that by adding both FSU and Miami. If they can do that with GaTech, Clemson, Louisville and one other school for 16 (Cincy?) then they have really solidified the conference by bringing in some big time markets.

If the Big 12 and Big Ten expanded as such I would consider the SEC the losers out of those three if what they got was NCSU and VT but maybe that's just me.

Just to complete the final of the four super conference proposal today. Virginia Tech and North Carolina State to the SEC for 16. Move Missouri back to the West division for 8 and with Big 12 becoming the Big 16, we have a perfect 32 team alignment for Champions Bowl a preliminary to the plus one bowl.

In reading the reports of the SEC's AD & coaches meetings in Destin from the sports section of http://WWW.THESTATE.COM , they are struggling with the issue of cross-division scheduling.

Schools such as UGA, UF, and So. Car., are not keen to going to 9 conference games since each has an ACC in-state rival to play at each regular season's end. Schools in Alabama, Mississippi, and others, do not. Kentucky does play L'ville regularly before season's end.

Les Miles is among those wanting no permanent cross-overs; pointing to Miss. State with Kentucky as an example.

Spurrier favored only divisional games counting toward being the divisional winner. He pointed to the easier access Georgia had during the last two years.

Georgia does not want to give up playing Auburn; Alabama wants to keep playing Tennessee, and Florida likes keeping LSU (cross-division games). So. Carolina and Texas A&M, on extreme ends of the conference, will be permanent cross-overs if the present design holds.

So, expanding to 14 in a conference that had some ingrained preferences among various schools, does pose scheduling issues, and not all may end up fully happy about it.
As one AD said, it ultimately comes down to a vote, and the Presidents ultimately decide on the recommendation put forth.

Dang, at some point there may be proposals to have really 16 to solve the 14 conflict of interests. Still, a 16-member model (largely depending on whom would be added) may require some modest division shifts, and some would not be content with that.

I can appreciate Spurrier's suggestion. The cross-division match-ups in a given year can be grossly unfair.
In some years, the winner of the Big XII North was determined by who had to play the power teams in the South, and who had the easier match-ups.
Recently the SEC West has been a gauntlet (last year Bama, LSU, Arkansas in Top 5).

It seems as though the objection to 9 games involves inability to whup up on 1 fewer "body bag" opponent. Not so sympathetic about that.
It would seem a game vs. ACC in-state rival could be scheduled earlier in the season, if necessary. ACC is having the same issues with going to 9 games.

Oh no, there goes the Big 12 plans to grab up Florida State and Clemson. Just kidding! The SEC Gentleman’s agreement prevents this type of expansion from supposedly occurring. SEC backup plan say hello to Va Tech and NC State! Just kidding again! With 16 schools you now have two conferences in one. The SEC issue of scheduling gets worse. Maybe you should just merge the SEC and Big 12 into a super conference of 24 schools. Just kidding again!

The Pac 12 has similar issues expanding with 12 school when the four California schools insist on playing each other and two each are forced to be separate divisions to balance out schedules.

The ACC expands to 14 and they did not have a Texas A&M type school drop into their lap which had some benefits for expansion.

By design, poor Missouri has to be forced into the East division of the SEC when SEC west schools would have been somewhat closer.

Can anybody question the Big 12 decision under outgoing Commissioner Neinas watch to hold up at 10.

Neinas should be given commissioner of the decade award for using common sense in expansion.

Yeah, 'Bama & Auburn were having hissy-fits at any suggestion that Auburn would be shifted to the east.

Missouri sticks out like a sore thumb in that entire conference. Even giving them a protected rivalry with TAMU wouldn't have been great; they didn't always play each other in the B12.

I do wonder if Missouri regrets this move. We all know where they really want to be. Maybe the kick some butt in the SEC, win a couple of NC's, then apply and lay it out to their crush.

If Missouri and Texas A&M would not have moved would there had been any changes in the Big XII?

Probably not.

Perhaps they could eliminate the permanent cross-overs by realigning the divisions as follows:

East
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Alabama
Auburn

West
Kentucky
Missouri
Arkansas
Texas A&M
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State

Other than the LSU/Florida cross-over, which Les Miles opposes anyway, that should capture the important ones within the divisions.

I live in Missouri (suburban St. Louis), and must say that reaction is mixed but generally positive toward SEC.

Personally, I feel Missouri would fit best in the Big Ten, and they were hoping to take the #12 spot that went to Nebraska.

But when Texas, TT, OU, OSU had not one, but a second daliance with the PAC that threatened to leave ISU, Missouri, KU, KSU, and Baylor in the lurch,
Missouri's administration no longer felt like partners with those schools, and completely lost trust.

When the SEC came calling, offering stability and an improved financial situation, the decision was a "no brainer".

Many will miss the rivalry with KU, which is a casualty in all of this.
I think the sentiment among lots of older alumni is that Missouri loved the Big 8, but was never thrilled with the merger with the 4 Texas teams.
They increasingly tended to dominate the conference (neutral sites for conference tourneys moved to Dallas in many cases),
and when the Big XII North schools were in danger of being cast adrift, it was "every man for himself".

How Missouri fares against SEC competition remains to be seen. Initially, Missouri may be mediocre.
However, some home-grown football prospects are giving Missouri more consideration, as they will playing in what is perceived to be the top conference.
While in the Big XII, local football recruits tended to bolt for the Big Ten, Nebraska, or Oklahoma.
Now that Gary Pinkel has established a decent FB program (by keeping more local prospects in-state, and successfully recruiting in Texas),
Missouri's program is much more attractive, and I think the move to teh SEC should only help that.

Great points, tute.

For Missouri, and the fans, the SEC should be considered quite a positive. We all know they wanted in the Big Ten...but it wasn't mutual.
The folks in Missouri, especially near St. Louis, always feel an association with the miswest cities, like Chicago. And rightly so. Nobody will deny that. BUT...the question is if you live in Missouri, who do you associate yourself with more: southwest schools in Texas and Oklahoma (who run the Big 12) or schools in the south, like Kentucky, Tennessee and others? The answer is likely the south. Sure, Kansas and Iowa St. might be good partners for Missouri. But the rest of the Big 12 isn't exactly classic Missouri. Since the Big Ten wasn't an option, that left 1 choice: the SEC or the Big 12...and the SEC is a more logical fit for Missouri than the Big 12 in the minds of the Missouri admins. 6 or 13 year waiver rights aside, it's still Texas/OU's conference with Iowa St., Kansas St., Baylor, and even basketball power Kansas just along for the ride.

Almost gotta think with the FSU/Clemson Big 12 talk, that maybe the ACC should have made a stronger push to get Texas, TTech, OU and OSU...since a 16 school conference with those 4 would be better (with FSU, Miami, GTech, Clemson, VA Tech, UVA, Maryland,NC State, UNC, Duke, Wake, BC as "filler" as opposed to Iowa St., Kansas St., Kansas, Baylor, etc.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

So very true, tute. I don't think it can be said enough that Missouri did what it felt it needed to after repeated betrayals and other motivational factors.

I don't know where Missouri fits...I wouldn't mind seeing them in the B1G, someday, with a Kansas who finally sees there's life after UT and OU.



Deloss Dodds is waging a one-man war against the ACC. I wouldn't want his type near any stable conference.

I am excited for a SEC network. Maybe more than UT and WV resorting to internet "trollery," all the SEC has to do to get what it wants is say..."hey, more actual money!"

Dennis, it is good you showed this model, thanks.
There were versions of it before, and maybe the SEC needs to take a real close look at it, in a serious way, given the unsettling perceptions again at the forefront.
I recall, one concern voiced about moving Alabama & Auburn to the east was that the "east" would then appear considerably more powerful than the "west". In the history of SEC divisional play, perhaps with the last two or three years as an exception, that may be a valid point. However, there is a degree of rotation in strength among schools, so anyone assuming the "west" will become the lessor, or that just one school, such as LSU or Arkansas, becomes the sole hevyweight, may not become the ultimate case.
The SEC has had great success with the generally clean, east-west divide. Certainly, I would not want to see them adopt an ACC-type model, trying to placate all, then end up with more confusion than resolution.
----------------------
As to some folks commenting about Mizzou, and suggest they don't belong there (in the SEC); give it time, they haven't even played a game yet. After a few years, then a better perspective will develop. As to this Mizzou to the B1G stuff, the B1G had their chance to include them when Nebraska was added. Where was the B1G offer even when Mizzou was in discussion with the SEC? Is Mizzou suppose to quickly forget that? Strained feelings were not just left concerning the B12.
It's water under the bridge now, and for any B1G element/fan to assume the B1G can pick at will, that may not be the case in all situations. I expect Mizzou will have an adjustment period, but they will blend & develop well in the SEC.

Hey Quinn, maybe we should rename the CollegeSportsInfo Board to Please Help Save the ACC!

What do Missouri to the SEC discussions have anything to do with decisions made by the ACC.

It is not like being objective and unbiased having any merits eh!