I live in suburban St. Louis, Missouri, and my wife is a Mizzou grad (but not a rabid Mizzou sports fan).

My take on the situation is this: Missouri was happy in the Big XII.
After a few years, the feeling in Missouri was that the Texas schools were beginning to dominate the conference.
I don't think the problem was sports domination, per se, but rather domination of the conference management.
This feeling was shared with the former Big 8 schools (perhaps not OU and OSU so much,or THEY DIDN"T MIND so much, due to their closer ties to the state of Texas).

Missouri is every bit as much of a basketball school as a fotball school, and has developed a strong rivalry with Illinois (just renewed yesterday, in fact).
Before the chaos of the last year and a half, the most stable conferences were probably the Big Ten and SEC.
When Delany announced that the Big Ten would expand to 12 or more, Missouri (the school, the governor, a lot of alumni) thought "Hey, why not ?"

Meanwhile Texas seemed to take the lead of a break-away contingent aimed at joining the PAC,
and leaving the remaining (north) members of the Big XII in a rather non-viable conference.
Once Texas started playing their cards, Missouri lost all trust in the UT power-brokers, and realized they could be left high-and-dry.
Missouri was well-advised to start looking out for themselves.
Not sure who initiated contact, but UM and the SEC started courting.
The SEC needed another large school and TV market to pair with TA&M, and Missouri wanted a home in a conference with long-term stability.
They both had something to offer each other, and the marriage was consumated.

Is Mizzou a great fit in the SEC ? Not entirely. Honestly, WVU would've been a better fit.
The best fit for Mizzou (in my opinion) would've been the Big Ten. Delany didn't see it that way. Not sure why....
Missouri fits the mold of the big midwestern state flagship school. like Kansas, like Nebraska.
I personally think Missouri didn't go about kissing Delany's *** the right way.
face it - he's an egomaniac that needs a lot of care and feeding.

Will Mizzou be a happy camper long-term in the SEC ? I think ultimately they will. They'll need to develop some rivalries.
But the money is good, they are treated as equal partners, and were welcomed with open arms.
Although SEC FB is super-tough, Mizzou may do quite well in some of the other sports.

First, Missouri's not going anywhere.

Second, I'm still not convinced the $50 million would hold up in court but if it did, when was the last time a school paid the full exit fee. They always get negotiated down.

Even if FSU (or any ACC school) had to pay the whole $50 million, it's still worth it. Let's say the new SEC deal nets $24 million per year, the ACC averages 17 million. After only 7 years in the SEC, the $50 million would be paid for and you making $7 million more for each of remaining 5 or 6 years that you would be getting if you stayed. They would still be $35 million ahead and $35 million dollars is a lot of money to throw away. Do I think the SEC will invite FSU? No, well at least not as their 1st or 2nd choice.

Pitt, 'Cuse, WVU, and TCU just alll paid the full exit fee to leave the BE..

Pitt and Syracuse $5 mill due + negotiated and indeterminant fee for leaving prior to 27 months.

TCU paid $5 million.

WVU paid $10 million.

Missouri and TAMU exit fee was $30 million each but negotiated down to 12.4 million

Pitt and 'Cuse paid $7.5m each, TCU $5m, and WVU "took it all" for $20m, which was absorbed by the Big XII. Had WVU not been so eager to leave so quickly, I suspect they had a $7.5m "out" heading their way.

The Big XII schools took their discount at the expense of their shares. Missouri may have gotten a 60% off coupon out of the conference, but the Big XII took 90% of Missouri's cut from its media deals.

There seems to be a lot we don't fully know when programs walk if they can get out at such a discount. I would assume that were an ACC program to defect, it would likely also come piecemeal'ed between an out-of-pocket rate and a prorated media share.

Regardless, I think UMD is thinking big-picture. Even for a school as prominent as it is, to think they are draining resources can't bode well for the ACC. UMD isn't a doormat or fallback like Rutgers is; the cost of remaining in the ACC could be fatal for more athletic and academic programs. It's for this that the ACC should consider its moves wisely, as UMD is put in the precarious position of being turned away from its historic rivals for a more Big East-like division that might help the travel costs some. For UMD, the point where the Big Ten (or SEC, who knows) may be a better home than the ACC could be when the school realizes the only thing being in the ACC means is just the name.

The only thing that would remain, then, would be: who's #14?

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/3 ... i-texas-am
The two schools will be leaving the Big 12 for the SEC at a price of just $12.41 million each. While to you and me that sounds like a pretty hefty number, it isn't much when you consider how much both schools could have lost if not for some top notch legal work.

"Both schools announced in the fall of 2011 that they would be leaving the Big 12 on July 1, 2012, but Big 12 bylaws state that schools that provide less than 12 months' notice of their eventual departure are subject to having 90 percent of their conference revenue retained.

The total was estimated to be nearly $30 million for each school, but as you can see, Missouri and Texas A&M won't even have to pay half of that."

Nebraska and Colorado buyouts

http://www.statesman.com/news/sports/co ... -12/nRx5F/

"It will cost Nebraska $9.25 million to withdraw from the Big 12 to head to the Big Ten.

Cash-strapped Colorado will pay $6.86 million to head to the Pac-10.

The amounts were based on projected revenue each school would've collected for 2010-11 had they stayed. However, the penalties were substantially less than they could've been because both Colorado and Nebraska challenged whether they legally had to pay an exit fee.

Collectively, the Big 12 "thought it would be closer to $30 (million), and they thought zero," said commissioner Dan Beebe."

The way Missouri made it sound, the $12.4m was conditional upon the $500K officials pay and waiving all rights on the Fox deal (which sounds like MU and TAMU were written into the contract).

I believe the new "it" figure will be the $20m WVU "coughed up." Though, whether it be $12.4, $20, or $50m, the B1G ain't coughing up a dime to "help a brother out."

Just a thought but considering that the 4 teams that make the playoffs have additional money set a side, separate from the conference payouts, could having one (or 2) of your teams in the playoffs be so valuable that it encourages expansion? Each playoff spot will be some where around another $25 million to the conferences. The B1G would not get a team in this year. They would not of gotten one in last year either where the SEC had 2 teams. Using simple math, over the past 2 years that's $75 million for the SEC and a big nothing for the B1G.

Between the ACC, SEC, B1G, PAC and Big 12 there are 62 schools, if you have a 12 team conference like the B1G that's a 19% chance of getting a team in the playoffs where the SEC has a 22% chance considering they have 14 members. Would it be wise for the B1G to raid the ACC and expand to 16 thus giving them a 25% of landing a team in the playoffs. Would adding FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech help not only in getting to the playoffs but also help expand the recruiting map and TV market for the B1G? If the B1G only will consider AAU members how about Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia and Miami (or Rutgers)? Does the SEC consider going to 16 to increase their chances, protect their recruiting base and add to the SEC Network's TV market?

Will the playoff have conferences consider expansion, probably not but it's worth considering.

Considering the B1G has two tie-in's, I don't know where that puts the conference in terms of expansion. That matter sounds like they are set. The question for them, as well as the SEC...can they coast on at-large chances for additional spots, and would expansion better those chances?

Rumors are that during a UMD BoT meeting, there was word that the university was talking to Big Ten officials or something like that. Probably a really junk rumor, but it would be a very logical step given the recent financial issues and them voting down the $50m buyout. Depending on when that buyout really goes into effect (or, rather, when programs stay long enough to accept those terms given its "immediacy"), it might really place UMD's plans onto the express track.

The Rutgers board, of course, is going nuts.

lots of smoke out there about MARYLAND joining the B1G and the smoke is not coming from West Virginia.

http://www.testudotimes.com/2012/11/16/ ... k-in-vogue

I'm not sold but reports coming from Columbus, State College and Baltimore. Some suggest, as early as next week. Is Rutgers next?

Newer article from WNST, 1570 am, saying may be on verge on announcement.

http://wnst.net/top-story/crabs-n-beer/ ... nd-simple/

The B1G's TV deal is up next and this brings in the DC and Baltimore markets. If they also add Rutgers, the B1G gets Jersey too. IF Maryland leaves and the B1G beats the ACC to Rutgers then Louisville to ACC.

If it's about TV, makes turning down Missouri more puzzling. How many more TV sets if the B1G would have added Missouri then Maryland, Rutgers and someone else like Georgia Tech.

ESPN article reporting that Big Ten is in serious negotiations with Maryland and Rutgers with a "possible" announcement as early as Monday.Link at http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ources-say

ESPN's rumor is UConn replacing Maryland, which I think makes a lot more sense for them than Louisville.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

we'll see