This is Alvarez's contribution to the B1G's vaudevillian theme-and-variation +1 routine. Sounds just like it when he talks about letting "have's" having it entirely their way.

The scary thing is, the more irrelevant the B1G gets in the title picture, like this year, the more you'll hear people in the B1G say it, and the more stubborn they will get to ensure it.

GOD IT TICKLES ME TO POST THIS !!!!

The first BCS standings came out, and there is NOT A SINGLE B1G team in the top 25 !!!
(Shhhh !!!! - there are 4 (counting Boise St., not counting Notre Dame) Big East teams in the Top 25).
(Shhhh !!!! - there are 2 ACC teams (not counting Notre Dame) in the Top 25).

OK - OSU and PSU are on double-not-so-secret-probation, but Alvarez needs to shut up already !!!!
The Big Ten has particpated in very few National Championship Games.
They (or the SEC) may be the richest conference, in terms of revenue, but they have under-performed on the field.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1371 ... -standings

Exactly. But I would be scared of Alvarez's words when the B1G is down a few of their powerhouses, clearly out of the national picture, yet sitting on the best TV deal while there is not a formalized and finalized playoff system. Don't put it past the B1G to put this playoff issue back into uncertainty. Don't think Alvarez's opinion is a unique one for the conference.

When Alvarez bundles the Big XII in there with the SEC, PAC, and B1G, he's saying he'd want the Rose and Champions Bowl being the semifinal round, with the winners playing in the +1 for the championship.

Oh, I think you are correct, in that they would like that in their own little ideal world.

But I think Delany et. al. know better than to push that angle.
They are basically saying the ACC is unworthy.
If they start to go there, that might just be an engraved invitation for every Congressman from Boston to Miami (now including IND, PA, NY) to scream "anti-trust".

The Big 5 has successfully locked up the majority of the [don't call it BCS anymore] money, through monopolization of these Contract Bowls (Rose, Orange, Champs).
They'll be in position to dominate the semi-finals and the CCG, as well. Once in a Blue Moon, an upstart from another conference may enjoy some success.
JUST LEAVE IT BE, Barry !!! How greedy can you get ?

What a fascinating topic---the four super-conferences of the "haves"! The conspiracy theories may have dimensions of actual truth. The four super-conferences idea may not be an after-the-fact reflection, but a wishful resurrection after some hardcore derailment or perceived, temporary setbacks.

The though is not on a particular blog script or Internet article, but the heard, very unconfirmed, and speculative scenario goes something like this.......

The idea of four super-conferences was embraced by certain big conferences & networks, particularly ESPN, for some time prior to any expansion developments.
The B1G, SEC, PAC12, and the Big12 would be the core.
The SEC, not the ACC, made the pre-emptive move in expanding to 14.
The SEC and Big 12 wanted to establish the "Champions Bowl" to match the Rose bowl in line with the concept of matches among the big 4.
The Big 12 needed to expand with quality additions. Landing Florida State would be the key. Deplete much of the ACC by also taking Clemson, GT, and VPI. VPI would be most tough or impossible to acquire, so settle with Louisville instead, and worry about VPI if/when a 16 team conference later emerges. VPI and Miami (FL) would ultimately be #15 & #16 for the B12.
So the Big 12 adds FSU, Clemson, GT, and Louisville and reaches 14, which in comparison to the SEC, would make the Champions Bowl look awesome.
Notre Dame in talking with B12 elements, particularly from Texas, gave secret indications to the B12 they would not want to be left out of any super-conference concept, and gave vibes they would consider B12 membership intitially as a non-fb member. This was all part of keeping the B12 from acting further, and it worked.
The B1G and PAC12 were following their solidarity track by pursing their "coop" intiative with inter-conference, regular season play.
The PAC12 did not like expansion options for themselves, particularly with B12 schools off the table. Ultimately, there could be an exchange. The B12 sends ISU, Kansas & KSU to the PAC12, as the B12 expands further eastward with perhaps more desired ACC remnants such as Pitt.
The ACC was alarmed at the 4-super conferences idea having legs, and movement per the Champions Bowl, and went into full speed with the Orange Bowl arrangement, and embracing the now agreement with Notre Dame. This throws a wrench into the 4 super-conference concept and gives Notre Dame a new home for bb & other olympic sports, retains ND fb independence, a clear option if ND has to commit to fb, and direct access to a major bowl.
Had the ACC become vulnerable, it would be picking grounds for 3 of the 4 super-conferences. FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VPI, and Louisivlle from the BE would be B12 members. The SEC would find #15 & #16 with UNC and NCSU to get the turf and break the ACC fundamental bond. The B1G moves and takes Notre Dame, Maryland, Virginia, and Rutgers.
The "coop" inter-conference exchange between the PAC12 and the B1G fell through, mainly from USC and with Stanford, citing the rivalry with ND. Yet, B1G schools also were playing ND, and the conferences knew games with ND were a factor before the concept was pursued.
ND was viewed as a player in all the super-conference discussions, played their hand perfectly, got what they wanted (remain independent), and put a damper on the 4-super conferences idea/pursuit.

Perhaps in a country club lounge, maybe the powers did discuss some of the above, and had some form of an action plan that, for now, has fallen short due to too many variables and the lack of comprehensive control. Try again later or pursue increments to reach the objective?

Alvarez is also a bit of sour grapes, too, though. The ND acquisition and the massive buyout increase may have staggered or outed the B1G's plans to crawl eastward in its own way. Now, the B1G may have to rethink its planning and adjust its tempo.

To Alvarez, it seems like between the B1G and SEC, the eastern schools that matter are spoken for.

Even for the B1G, where can they expand to? Rutgers in the east and/or someone like Kansas in the west? Like the other big 5 type conferences, what's available and potentially WANTED has become much more acute.

True. The Big Ten passes on Missouri, but if they NEEDED a school, have to wonder if there is a chance that Misosuri would leave the SEC, as the Big Ten is their first choice.

_________________


@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.

True, though I don't know if they go west anymore if it isn't Texas. It's not like Iowa State, Kansas, and Missouri weren't out there. The conference only returned Nebraska's calls.

It's the same in the east: Pitt and Rutgers have been out there for years.

But the B1G is a secretive bunch, and they don't like leaks. One almost cost PSU its membership, and we only knew about Nebraska until just before it happened. In both cases, conversations were being had for years. I think Maryland is part of whatever the conference does next. I really believe their nay vote on the buyout increase was more than just a symbolic thing.

And while I know $50m is a lot...it's not like people wouldn't step up for UMD if it meant a Big Ten affiliation. I know one apparel company head who has that kind of coin...

When it comes to GOR there just is no way of getting around this legal issue. When schools sigh GOR, they simply are not going to switch conference until that agreement is legally completed. This is precisely why the Big Ten commissioner stated you do not have GOR sighed until every school is totally committed to that league.

It is just not the 20 million plus the Big 12 would garnish from the Big Ten for the next 13 years that would otherwise go to Texas if the school tried to jump to the another league. The owing rights for all those home games for both football and basketball would be owned by the Big 12 for the next 13 years. The Big 12 would be able to dictate when these type of games could be scheduled, etc. It would virtually be a nightmare for a league trying to complete its conference schedule and needing the approval of another owning league for agreed time slots on schedules. There is no way a league would touch another school that already signed GOR with that school’s current league. For example an Indiana basketball game at Texas would ironically be a Big 12 conference game and part of the Big 12 schedule to determine schedule date/time etc.

So everyone please forget Kansas and Texas leaving the Big 12 for the next 13 year. Ditto any school leaving the Pac 12 or Big Ten which have similar GOR rights sighed.

It would be interesting if the Big Ten wanted Missouri, where would the SEC turn for a 14 replacement school? Missouri could leave the SEC without a notice or monetary or GOR penalty.

Missouri could be a major flight risk to the SEC.

Dearest Missouri,

We think you belong in the Big Ten. You know you have always had your eyes on them.

Sincerely, Florida State University

$50 million exit fee from the ACC might not make the SEC as ideal a option. Odd to say that since the SEC is the best football conference, likely best for all sports. But $50 million is a lot of money to throw away.

_________________


@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.

Ironically if weren’t for the new relationship of the SEC and Big 12 with the “Champion Bowl”, Missouri and Louisville would fit like a hand in glove into the Big 12.

Culturally Missouri is by far a better fit with the schools of the old Big 8. The second ideal situation would have Missouri joining the Big Ten.

I personally never understood why Missouri decided to join the SEC. I could have understood when the Pac 16 were a possibility, however, when that ideal died and the Big 12 stabilized, Missouri decided to jump into a situation that may not be in the best long term interest of the school.

With the comments made by the Athletic Director of Missouri that realignment may not be over with and schools will continue to gravitate over the next couple years and associate with like minded schools in both revenue and athletics, It does make your wonder if Missouri continues to have a strong desire to join the Big Ten.

Texas A&M had been wanting in the SEC at least since the later days of the old SWC. So far, they appear to be adjusting well.

As to Mizzou, I would suggest caution though per premature assessments. One half of their first fb season in the SEC is too shallow of a measurement. Mizzou may be having a bit of a "down" year in fb and similar results may have showed if they had stayed in the B12 for the season. Mizzou even lost a close game with Vanderbilt; nothing against Vanderbilt because Vandy is an improved program and has given certain other SEC teams fits at times. Perhaps Mizzou need a bit more time to adapt and recruit further to SEC play...speed, defenses, etc. See what Mizzou looks like in a few years, and the pattern that is developing.

Sure Mizzou wanted the Big10 when the Big10 announced it was considering expanding. Mizzou openly pressed the politics of it, only to be shot down. When the SEC was looking for #14, well, we know the story.

Mizzou left the B12 leaving some strained relations. If Mizzou suddenly left the SEC anytime real soon for an B1G invite, they'd look like the conference hopper TCU has been, and would carry a stigma not so enduring. Mizzou was embarrassed over the earlier Big10 slight. Resurecting those emotions anytime soon may not be a good idea.

FSU was offered SEC membership nearly a quarter century ago. They took the ACC offer instead. It is still remembered. It is still recalled the days long ago when Michigan kept Notre Dame out of the Big Ten.

The point, sometimes schools land somewhere due to much earlier circumstances and missed vision.

I may be proven wrong given how expansion goes sometimes, but I expect Mizzou in the SEC is a long-term proposition.

I do get disgusted with some rude and arrogant SEC fans, and even some sports columns, taunting Mizzou for making the move to the SEC and implying they cannot compete. Assess Mizzou's history, resources, and potential. They are not the first to come into the SEC with a shaky start and with claims they cannot compete. Ask the Gamecocks.

Amen to all of this. Especially with Missouri. The more time passes, the more clear it will become that the Missouri-Big Ten affair was a very one-sided, unrequited crush.

Seeing the end of Missouri-Kansas is a very sad thing, and how unceremoniously it ended is a slap in the face to both schools' alumni and fans, but frankly, seeing how almost sociopathic Oklahoma and Texas became, you can't blame the Tigers for going somewhere else where they will be and are valued and not were.