Maybe because Missouri's tenure in the SEC will not be a long one, with that spot likely to be filled by an actual eastern team, like one would find in the ACC? I see Missou's SEC walk a bit of a hasty gamble by the SEC, one that the ACC successfully foiled by remaining unified?

CBSSports article(previously posted in another thread)comparing SEC and Big Ten league revenue distributions for this school year.Will SEC tv renegotiations due to expansion allow that league to catch up with Big Ten and PAC 12? Link at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... money-race

SEC distributed $20.125 million per team in 2011-12; Big Ten distributed $24.6 million.
Does the B1G money include money from the Big Ten network? If it does, some SEC teams made more like Florida who gets 10 million for their 3rd tier rights from the SUN sports network making UF's take 30.125 million compared to 24.6.

Edit:Seanbo,we have been thru this before,ALL SEC schools and ALL Big Ten schools and ALL Pac 12 schools and ALL Big 12 schools and ALL ACC schools have separate individual media deals NOT just Florida.
Until you can show that the SEC league average for these separate media contracts are appreciably different than the averages for any of the other leagues,what is your point?

Thanks
Freaked

Yes, the $24.6m figure does include BTN revenue, a portion that decreased from last year to this. It is not yet fully compensating Nebraska, but will next season. Next year's figure should be interesting; not for just the Nebraska thing, but what kind of money the B1G's ice hockey conference could pull.

I get the feeling the SEC will still eclipse the B1G in no time. Both schools added really increase even the regional draws of a lot of the SEC's games. A lot more Tier 2's for some teams. I think putting Missouri in the east for football = brilliance. It will make for some fantastic games that can be enjoyed by a different portion of the country. Florida Gator football in St. Louis and Kansas City...who knew?!

Edit:The BTN per school payout for the 11 schools other than Nebraska did dip some this year since there are now 12 schools to divide ALL of that league's revenue pots.The reason the overall average increased was the renegotiated CBS and BTN deals plus the separate FB championship game revenue.
Also please see my point in above edited post regarding the issue of individual school media deals which ALL major conference schools have.

Thanks
Freaked

Not sure what you imply by your last line because you presented it as a question.
Can't foil something that was not pursued.

Perhaps. I take the communication jargon as legalese and interpret it quite liberally. I don't doubt SEC school officials talked to various ACC schools. But there (probably) wasn't any official notifications from Slive to any of those schools.

But I also don't believe money is the be-all, end-all for every program. It was an easy decision for schools like Arkansas and South Carolina to go to the SEC...they were mid-level programs (that's a generous compliment to 'SC, actually) who could exist at the same level in that conference. I'm not sure the same could be said for anyone in the ACC who is suspected/targeted. If Virginia Tech decides today to join the SEC, are they booking annual flights to the conference championship? These ACC schools risk a lot of visibility and value if they defect to a place where they may be outmatched from top to bottom. People assume that a school like VT would thrive in the SEC...but let's assume they don't. Would $25-30+ million be worth becoming the next Vandy, Ole Miss, or MSU?

I presume when I say "foiled," that there are a lot of schools in the ACC not necessarily elated about their place, but understand it and value it enough to protect it. At least, maybe they did last year.

If I understand your point, it's that most of these moves recently have started from some motivation that was not entirely monetary.

Nebraska and TA&M left the Big XII, because both thought (rightly or wrongly) they had been jobbed by Texas (Big XII FB CCG, and LHN "recruiting leverage").
Colorado hadn't really fared well in the Big XII, and is perhaps more culturally aligned with the PAC.
Missouri feared the Big XII was twice on the verge of break-up, and was offered stability.

TCU, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse all clamored for lucrative spots in power conferences, over the continual dysfunction and lack of direction in the Big East.
Those schools will all do better financially, but part of their driver was to be a member of a conference that has a more prominent future than the Big East.

If the Big XII plans to sit tight for a bit, we may make it until next June until there is any movement within the Big 5 conferences.
It would appear that the Big Tan, ACC, and Big XII are all waiting on Notre Dame to figure out where they ultimately want to be.
That's not going to happen at least until after the new BCS playoff format is finalized (June 20th ?).

The next sequence of moves may actually be:
BE FB negotiates a TV contract.
Boise State / SDSU decide whether to stay with the BE or not.
BE gets somebody to commit to be FB #14 (I think Army or BYU for FB Only make the most sense).
MWC reacts by either adding Boise State / SDSU (for all sports, maybe they'd let SDSU go BW/ MWC like Hawai'i is)
OR MWC adds Idaho and NMSU as FB only members (perhaps for a defined-term contract).

Money is always the big player, but not the only reason for changes. There's those rare decisions whereby a school has dropped back or dropped out due to being unable or unwilling to keep up. Examples: When Villanova canned their fb program for a period and came back at the then, 1AA level; Tulane dropped out of the SEC long ago, finances were an issue.

When So. Car. left the ACC for independence, the claim for leaving was over the ACC's recruitment rule at the time. I suppose that was seeking more money too in trying to garner more fb wins. Not good results for independent period. And the So. Car. situation then, had multiple conflicts with the ACC.

Scheduling issues, sometimes academics, and even personal conflicts, internal power struggles, and grudges play into certain decisions to change. History matters.

Bishin,

All conferences with fb have members with more frequent winning in fb than others. Assets vary. Anyone taking shots at Vandy, the Mississippi schools, So. Carolina, or Kentucky, (Miss. State & S.C. have won respective divisional championships) should also understand they contribute to others success as well as their own, if overall comperatively less frequent to the schools of Les Miles & Nick Sabon. MSU won the SEC baseball this year. SC just won their regional after 2 baseball nat'l championships. And who was the NCAA basketball king? Vandy has done some impressive accomplishments outside fb, and even they get to a bowl once in awhile.

Should the B1G be belittled for having Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota fb? I think not; the negative labling of schools, and mostly charter members at that, in a conference is to serve whose purpose? There's always folks on the lower fb rung in a conference, some move up at times, some hang there most of the time. Why is it troubling? Want the SEC to pull a BE like they did when they kicked out Temple? Or is the purpose to point out the SEC has certain schools not a glamourous as some traditional fb powers?

These schools are part of the conference; they compete; they get beat, sometimes win; and entitled to share in the revenue disbursed without shame.

sec03, I agree...but part of why I "went there" was because unlike the Miss schools and Vandy, VT's just big for football. What is their fallback? So, if VT loses its footing and performs irregularly, being a consistent finisher near the bottom of the league, what value do each have with each other?

At the time, it was the same kind of dilemma FSU wrestled. Now, FSU could add value to the SEC's basketball, baseball, softball, and track and field sports. That really couldn't be said in '88 and '89.

Bishin,
My concern with the SEC, if it further expands, is about becoming too big. At 16, it's enough for two conferences in the traditional sense. At some point, cohesion may start to show cracks. The B12 had that problem with their 'ole 12, but it was less about numbers and some, such as Nebraska, retained fondness for the old Big 8.
That said, the SEC adding Texas A&M and Mizzou was an opportunity too good to pass on, given the role of money and trends.

NCSU is interesting, but the ties to UNC would impede. It may be even good for the ACC in the long term, to have one less school in NC.

Agree, VPI looks largely one-dimensional. Wonder if after Beamer ball, Bud Foster, and any remants of the Vick bros. & their high school/area lineage to Newport Beach & Norfolk diminishes, shall VPI fb standout less in the ACC?

Am an unwavering dog lover, and detest foot stomping an opponent on the ground, so.....

Funny, because I've always thought 16 was ideal for anything over 10. My rationale was that at 16, you DO operate as (2) conferences under the same umbrella. So it's more like having the AFC and NFC in the same conference, but instead, we call this the SEC, instead of NFL.

At 16, it means 7 division games, so you play the same schools every year. For the 8th conference game, you play 1 school from the other division, with a rotation each year. So yeah, if you're Missouri and you play Florida at home 1 year...you don't play them again until 7 years later, when you play them at Florida. And guess what...maybe you play them in the championship game some year too.

The key is in letting go to the idea that everyone must be involved with each other. The NFC west teams worry little about the AFC east ones since they are in different divisions and not even in the same region. For the SEC, or others at 16, it's the same. Florida and Arkansas dont' need to play each other often. Texas A&M and South Carolina don't need an anual game. If they play at some point prior to their once every 7 year matchup, great, since it would be for the title.

16 is a chance to consolidate, to build rivalries with your 7 division opponents. At 12, it's all over the place in scheduling. Even worse, when you have more that 1 game a year cross-division, it ruins the quality of the division title...since it's false...too many variables such as playing 2-3 other schools that your other division mates didn't play.

_________________


@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.

For the SEC to go to 16 I think it would have to be NCSU and UNC to get either one of them, they're a package or VT and UVa so they'd have to choose 1 state or the other, they won't get both at 16. I'm not sure UNC or UVa have any interest in the SEC.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Going 16 may work better if it ends up not just limited to the SEC and/or the ACC. If it happened, I would hope the B12, B1G, & the PAC12 do the same.

Quinn, odd you mentioned Texas A&M & South Carolina. They have no history in playing each other in fb, but are slated to be permanent cross-division rivals in the 14-school format.

I believe it was Delany, B1G Commish (I may be incorrect; maybe it was Scott of PAC12 who actually pursued the 16 possibility with Texas & Co.), who pointed to the ole 16 team WAC as a bad precedent. While some have dimissed the WAC thing as a bad example in today's thrust, it does show splits can happen.

What if the SEC does decide to go to 16, & the west division decides to eventually split and team up with Texas, OU, OSU, etc.? While such is way too speculative, I'm not sure just by going to 16 implies permanent stability.

Are there enough desirable schools out there for the B1G, SEC, PAC12, Big12, and the ACC to all go to 16? Sure the SEC could pull that off, but all of the rest also? Obviously the BE would be depleted of what they have left that is appealing; and some already have the ACC depicted as a soon-to-be relic which I don't buy; but still, some rational geography has to exist somewhere.

The B12 is finding pickins' slim, leading to wish list rumors gone rampant. The PAC12 apparently doesn't want any new stuff west of Austin.

Notre Dame, BYU, Louisville, UCONN, Rutgers, and perhaps a few others such as Boise State, SDSU, & AFA may be sought for 4 or 5 super-conferences; but beyond that, it's down to types such as Temple, USF, UCF, UNM, Navy, CSU, Wyoming, Tulane, Rice, Houston, SMU, etc.

A few will have to compromise their criteria (Big East style) to get to 16 or back to 16.

UVA may want to be where VPI is not. If the SEC wanted to make inroads into NC, it may have to be both UNC & NCSU, but that would be extremely remote, and the ACC would have to be literally falling apart. UNC and Duke think they ARE the ACC, and in a political and practical sense, have largely and historically had their way with the control mechanism. Would they give that up for better SEC money? It would have to be way a lot more.

FSU would probably jump to the SEC now. Clemson, perhaps the same with some pushing; GT, perhaps much less so. The Presidents of SC/GA/FL/KY have this bond not to take in-footprint schools due to recruiting & profile competition. Of course, as things may change, they could cave with pressure. When the Big12 was near breaking up & a few were chatting seriously with the PAC12, the SEC was also talking with Oklahoma (who was tied to OSU and by desire, with UT) to come along with Texas A&M. Since the Big12 has now re-established itself, I suppose anything westward per any SEC future expansion is not much of a focus by comparison.

I was going off the premise that the schools in the footprint are not allowed. VT and UVa seem to have a bond, UVa only voting for the ACC to expand if it was w/ VT. No I don't think UVa or UNC want to leave the ACC. But I'm saying I don't think we'll see NCSU & VT in the SEC because of UNC & UVa, they are linked.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]