So the state government would rather have both of their schools in a crumbling conference? If the Big 12 were to really start falling apart would the Oklahoma government really be stupid enough to force Oklahoma to stay trapped in the sinking conference if they can't take Ok State with them to greener pastures?

Maybe

Looking at flag-ship type schools that moved to other major conferences over the last few years, they did not have "in-state sister school" issues. Among them, there were Nebraska, Colorado (already in a conference w/o CSU), Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland, and Rutgers. Texas A&M was an exception, and they were trying to go specifically to the SEC, and parting conferences ties with Texas was at least acceptable, if not desired, by some of the functionaries calling the shots. Even if the B12 was thought to perhaps crumble after the A&M departure, it's not like Texas didn't have great options if they were willing to compromise on stuff such as the LHN. And, OU, Kansas, etc. were still there, and the State of Texas is loaded with FBS schools, including baby sister, TTU.

Now, not only for the situations per Oklahoma and Kansas schools if the B12 breaks and bends on GoR at some point; but if the focus becomes more on extracting from the ACC, and specifically in North Carolina and Virginia, the heart of the ACC; then the crumbling conference scenario could happen there. Collapse shall not happen, but weakening will. And with super-sizing conferences, maybe not everyone can maintain certain cherished rivalries as OOCs'. Breakups are deemed unacceptable to some. But with the mega-money thrown out there, nothing is so certain.

Apparently, the big 4 (or 5), and some others, don't want to take second plus schools from same states, unless opportunities arise in places such as Texas, California, and Florida. Even if FSU is considered for the SEC, with UF already in the league, it shall challenge perspectives again.

For the SEC, depending on the circumstances, having Texas and/or FSU onboard would be among the very best choices. Even an OU-OSU combo may not have negative results, depending on how divisions would be re-structured. The PAC12 rejected the lone OU-OSU combo earlier; even though the combo could have been more valuable for the PAC12 than any SEC possibility.

That said, I don't see "two-schools pickups" from moderate sized states going to the same mega-conference. All this business about extending footprints and tapping new TV markets has made bringing onboard multiple tight-knit schools from the same state almost a thing of the past.

In top conferences, the sell to college presidents to accept new expansion is: "your schools will make so much more revenue, and the new additions are great, added value academic fits in new recruiting and TV markets that pose no threat to your existing domain". So, as this applies, go to 16, maybe 18, or 24. Get so big, you end up breaking apart yourselves.

Mine isn't to question the quality, but the timing of the acquisition. When the SEC grabbed South Carolina, it wasn't during any great era for their athletics, and it was well before their "Cocks" marketing gimmick craze. Arkansas football, IIRC, like many within the sWc, were in and out of probation.

Missouri came in virtually clean as a whistle with football and basketball being in a good place. I think they have the potential to make the SEC (and themselves) very well-off. One just hopes they culturally "click" with the conference.

I might have suggested this on here before so forgive me if this is a repeat. I think it would be incredibly bold of the SEC if they, in attempt to corner the market on college football, became two conferences as opposed to one. At first glance this sounds ludicrous but if the SEC West combined with the best elements of the Big 12--Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St and the SEC East absorbed ACC powerhouses like Florida St, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami, and Georgia Tech the landscape of college sports would have just 4 players--the Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC EAST, and SEC WEST. The SEC consortium would control half of college sports and likely have the gravitas to muscle around the other two leagues.

If the Big Ten decided to grow to keep pace they would not have an incredibly deep pool to choose from. Notre Dame is the only real gem. Kansas, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, UVA, and UNC are their other options.

The Pac 12 however would be geographically hemmed in. With Texas unavailable the Pac 12's prospects are dim. It's add MWC schools (or BYU) or stay at 12. No MWC schools are going to move the television needle--not with USC/UCLA already owning the San Diego market, Utah having a presence in Salt Lake/Provo, and Boise being a utterly worthless tv market. They could reach out and try to create a northeastern enclave with some of the schools I mentioned when discussing the Big Ten but even that would do little to salvage the Pac 12's image.

The two SEC's (I'll call the eastern one the SEC and the western one the SWC) could look something like this:

SEC North--Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Clemson, one of :Louisville/WVU/NC St
SEC South--South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Florida, Miami
Or perhaps a zipper model would be best--

SWC East--Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, Arkansas
SWC West--Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

That's the risk. Once 16-plus is achieved, the idea and pressures for a split grow. Traditional conference rivals play those from the other division even less. Or, the top ones of both divisions decide to split away. Then each tries to expand again to pick-up what desirable ones are out there.

In terms of logistics and some real common sense pending a hypothetical change, a model with Texas, OU, Okla. St., etc., in association with A&M, LSU, Ark., Mizzou, etc. would be formidable.
But, the SEC is not going to want to bring in the Baylors' or the even the TTUs' (allowing for the political dependencies in movement facilitation) to adjust to their current schools, then divide or re-shape.

Nothing against the B12 here at all, but the suggested alliance with the ACC would have all kinds of issues popping up. Basically, the geographic divide (and traditional/cultural factors) is wide and very distinct. Not much commonality except where WVU hangs (physically away from their host conference), and Louisville which is between the two, but still basically east. And both were recent replacement schools.

I agree there could be better designs and compositions across the board if the idea is really to have 4-super-sized conferences of similar value and potential strength. The process has been to pick and choose as opportunities arise, rather than mass cooperation, with some knowing they sure will be losers in such methodology.

Agree FightingMuskie, the PAC12 don't have great options for the mega-stuff. If embraced, their hope would be that Texas & top company bond with them and thus skip over much of the MWC domain.

PAC12 could get 14 now if they bend a bit on criteria. That would make them on par in numbers with the SEC, B1G, and the ACC. Thus, it remains the B12 that is the shortest on numbers with not much out there that is both pleasing and available. That's why those interests also want the B1G and the SEC to further expand with ACC schools to free-up some ACC schools for the B12. The wishing and hoping on this are certainly not uniform.

Despite the chatter, the B1G and the SEC may hold at 14 for a few years or perhaps longer. Even those two have to worry about, in chasing TV network dollars, becoming too big too fast and what reprecussions would result.

Okay then, I agree with the majority of people on the debate that the B1G will go to 16. How about this then: they grab both Virginia, and Pitt? This seals up the Pennsylvania/Maryland/NJ/ corridor and adds a large presence in the Virginia area. Arguments or agreements? Any comments?

The B1G is not grabbing Pitt, to many new markets available.

I have no inside source and I'm not from West Virginia but I believe Virginia and Georgia Tech will be in the B1G by next football season. I read a Chicago Tribune article where it stated most of their sources expect the B1G to expand to 18 and that 18 was more likely than 16. If that's the case I think FSU and BC could be 17 & 18. I think the Florida market is to profitable for the BTN to turn down.

I think the SEC will have 4 options.

A- add UNC and Duke, stay at 16
B- add UNC and Virginia Tech, stay at 16
C- add Virginia Tech and NC State, stay at 16
D- add Virginia Tech and FSU (block B1G), add UNC and Duke stay at 18 (if UVa, GT, FSU, and VT are gone, UNC knows the ACC can't be saved).

I think option A is most likely but think option D would be best for the SEC.

I honestly think that FSU ends up in the B1G or SEC. If I'm wrong, an eastern division of the Big XII with Miami, Clemson and NC State is pretty damn good.


There you have it, make fun.

Many people thought the ACC was so totally full of it academically when they "slummed it" with the FSU grab. Can't say myself that I still don't find it a bit awkward (although Louisville is the true dumpster dive). But if the B1G "goes there" and takes FSU, then you might see some nasty backlash from state governments with schools both in and out of the B1G. There just isn't any rhyme or reason for the grab other than money. We know that can't be said about Nebraska...there was history and when they joined, they shared the same AAU distinction as new members #13 and #14. And if the B1G does go to Florida State, then I hope the B1G is sued out of existence.

I think Pitt and Missouri are in the same boat, however. Both are the most natural, simple candidates for B1G membership, but both are considered "redundant." Never mind that if included, it makes the value of every other member that much more profitable because of the regional rivalries, this era isn't about making money the smart way, but the quickest and dumbest.

But, hey...maybe Pitt isn't B1G material...but would the SEC give them a shot?

negative.

Pitt's best chance at "upgrading", if that's what it is, would be the Big 12 - if Luck pounded the table for the old rival.

agree 100%

I don't necessarily disagree with the Big XII flirtation. Pitt doing well there may help their case in the future for another conference that has eluded them for 60+ years. Beat the Horns and Sooners enough times, and it becomes a lot more difficult to ignore the case.

However, pair Pitt with someone like VT, or even a second push for WV...now it's a bit different. Again, I don't think Pitt's a fit for the SEC culturally or academically, but if you're the SEC and you want to compete against the B1G by going market to market, or state to state, where do you fight your next fight? Part of me feels that if Clemson or FSU are not options, the fight for a North Carolina school of national or strong regional value will also not happen for them. So, if this is about getting schools in new territories, I think Pitt's on the board. Down there a far ways away, but if WVU was in the ballpark, I think Pitt's chances have to be better.

It's not the SEC strategy to compete with the B1G market to market or state to state. The B1G wants into the south, the SEC does not want into the north. The SEC wants to draw a line and I believe that line is Virginia and that's why the SEC will consider Duke to get UNC. Georgia Tech does not effect the SEC, other than the city of Atlanta, no other Georgia city or county will care if they have the B1G network (and most of Atlanta doesn't care). The Dawgs overwhelmingly dominate the state.

Here's something may be interesting per the SEC's interest in further expansion.

Having trouble offering the full link, out in the deep woods here -- Bigfoot must have been playing with the satellite unit again!
Two methods to find article:
WWW.THESTATE.COM/SPORTS
Pastides applauds Tanner's Start - by Pete Iacobelli, AP, printed Sat. Feb. 9, 2013
Or via www.GoGamecocks.com (requires log-in)

While most pertains to the Univ. of South Carolina President complimenting the rather new AD appointment; Pastides (a member of the NCAA Div. 1 Exec. Committee) reflects on SEC the expansion landscape.

Briefly paraphrasing some points only on the expansion question
* Hopes the SEC would stay away from additional moves
* Comfortable with the SEC's format with the additions of Tex. A&M and Mizzou
* Concerned that further expansion would cause the SEC to lose some of its common aspects among members
* Noting the Big Ten's pending additions of Md. & Rutgers, questions whether expanding a conference's footprint is the best model for athletics
* SEC leaders will always have an eye on the college landscape for if--or when--expansion is necessary

Interesting statements off quotes per recent B1G expansion: "What is this, a bank? You're opening up branches. You're headquartered in (Illinois) and you're opening a branch in New Jersey? That might be fine for bank business, but is it really going to work with us"

____________________________

Based on the some of the above and other commentaries/releases elsewhere, the SEC is not in the mood to further expand anytime soon.
Negative reflections (a shot across the bow) on recent B1G moves and ambitions are starting to show from the SEC domain. (To be fair about this, the SEC had expanded their footprint too when they went into Texas & Missouri)
Seanbo, agree with you-- the SEC shall seek to draw that line if the B1G attempts to head south .