Seanbo,
A few short years ago almost all of the post on this board would have been targeted for the Dream thread. In these days anything is possible.

Do you realize how much money Vanderbilt could make in academics alone with membership in the Big Ten just saying?

Vanderbilt could decide to buck the trend and option to keep old academic rivals and keep getting the crap beat out of them by football first schools or join a conference they have a lot in common due to academics.

Ditto Kentucky which would have great basketball rivalries with nearby Indiana and North Carolina in this 20 member scenario. Not sure Kentucky would fit the academic profile of the Big Ten?

Since Vanderbilt is or should be academic first and Kentucky is or should be basketball first, the Big Ten is not a dream if the conference wanted to expand into those states and markets.

Everyone just keep thinking the SEC is so untouchable because of football SOS when football may not always be the most important driving force in conference realignment. Just saying!

Lash,
Do you rememer 2 years ago when the B1G passed on Missouri and I said that the SEC would be wise to take the Tigers? Just saying?

Have you noticed that Vanderbilt is no longer getting their ass kicked in the SEC. Vanderbilt won 9 games this year, just saying?

Did you know that Kentucky is no where close to being an AAU member? The B1G seems to like that. Just Saying?

Lastly, football is not driving expansion, TV is. Football just happens to be the most watched sport in America and will be for some time. Just saying?

lash,

As a Mizzou fan here in CoMO, I can UNEQUIVICALLY (sp?) tell you that when the B1G passed on Mizzou in lieu of Nebraska, that was the final straw. Mizzou no longer longs for the B1G. It's fans and administration are tired of being treated as second class citizens in a league. The SEC has made it known since day 1 that Mizzou is wanted, welcome and an equal among peers. Mizzou would not get that from the snobs over in the B1G. Mizzou would not leave the SEC for the B1G unless it was FORCED to by the SEC.

And i really don't see UK or Vandy leaving right now either. Both are just getting competative in athletics and the academics in the SEC I think will pass that of the B1G in the next 50 years or so...

If it's true that Missouri has that kind of confidence, then all the power to them. But, I suspect if there's any shift in the winds, and the B1G were to change their tune, Missouri would bolt in an instant. The faculty, the alumni who emigrate north and east, and the state government is going to want that midwest, public ivy rub. And it is possible the tune may change when Delany isn't heading the conference.

I don't buy the UNC rumors one bit. Anyone who's ever been to Chapel Hill would agree. Now, if it was UNC AND Duke, that would be different.

The administration and faculty may want the B1G, but from reading different Tar Heel forums, I can tell you that UNC fans and alumni want the SEC overwhelmingly. They consider themselves southern and want to remain in the south if the ACC does not remain an option financially.

It is good to see a Mizzou fan weigh-in on this. Your point has merit.

When the B1G had all the drama of expanding a few years back and ultimately selected Nebraska for #12, Delany and other BIG personalities such as Alvarez, indicated they may go 12 or beyond, possibly up to 16. The conference, for that particular expansion, settled on Nebraska, which was in the process of losing the beloved AAU label, and who had been doing silent lobbying and prep for the B1G for years. Mizzou, at the time, openly purused the B1G admission, and got rejected. Remember, then, the SEC was at 12, and there was comparatively less talk of the SEC expanding at that moment. Well, we know what transpired in the B12, with the flurry of activity, almost daily, of what some B12 schools would do, with some of the key components ultimately staying. Timing, opportunity, and certain dissatisfactions, led to the SEC going to 14 with two B12 institutions, Texas A&M and then, Mizzou. Certainly the SEC/Texas A&M courtship had more extended history to it.

When contemplating adding Mizzou, certainly SEC Commish Slive had conversations with Delany about the B1G's interest in Mizzou. The SEC would not want to accept Mizzou and have the B1G pursuing Mizzou at the same time, or anything near-term, defined in years. Likewise, Slive and company, would have proposed the question to Mizzou brass, "if we accept you, are you fully committed, and would you be seeking to return later to the B12, or pursue further the B1G? If the answer was not solid affirmative to both, I do not believe the SEC would have taken the public relations risk with the potential to cause disruption within the SEC. Certain conferences do have their protocol when peer political strength exist, and Delany would know the ramifications about where to pick and choose, even for those who think the B1G can extract from anywhere, if and when they desire. That's not the case, but that's another story.

And, one should not forget, the B1G recently added Maryland and Rutgers. There was no Mizzou for #13 & #14. Can anyone outside the know be 100% sure that there were not conversations about including Mizzou then and were told it's not an option? The comeback would be the B1G wants to build their east coast footprint first. Well, there was a lot of B1G expansion eastward talk when Nebraska got selected, and they didn't go there then.

As to any of Texas, Oklahoma, GT, Virginia, and North Carolina going to the B1G, all that is pure speculation at best. That is not to say there will not be future 16-team leagues and new surprises, and TV revenue is driving decisions. But individual choices are impacted by history, personalities, political ties, reputations, and future projections.

Using the Mizzou to B1G advocates argument in reverse, maybe the SEC should pursue Penn State if that's the game. The B1G has not been such a bed of roses for them.

I gotta wonder if Boston College is going to get in on these rumors. If it's true that the ACC is about to get raided by the Big 12, Big 10, and SEC, then BC needs to position itself to get a Big 10 invite or risk being left in a watered down ACC. While not an AAU school their academics are very good and ranked higher than most Big 10 schools.

I don't know if they'd get in, I hear their athletic department is a mess (what I've read anyway) but probably nothing a little Big 10 money couldn't fix.

It's an interesting discussion that I'm not sure I'd support. Missouri instantly made the SEC more competitive on the football field and the hard court, with the additions of some key markets, to boot. I'll go down with the ship saying there was no better program out there for ANY conference to make than Missouri because of their competitiveness in both revenue sports. For the SEC, I think it was more of a risk going after West Virginia, FSU/Clemson, or VT because of the culture thing, the athletic pedigree (how bad is it for WVU to have even the SEC fans consider them hillbillies), and athletics than Missouri ever was.

You take Missouri because they are available, be it for a year or for a century. If the B1G can't realize that, then it's their mistake...no program aside from TAMU would have instantly added value, volume, and depth in any conference. WVU was a distant third.

The depth issue is one that the B1G can't skirt. Sure, PSU and Nebraska added football depth, they brought down the B1G's basketball. UMD gives the B1G better hoops, but nothing to write home about in football. Rutgers is a joke (and the way their football performed after getting the invite may be a sign of what is to come...their institutional endgame wasn't about being competitive in the B1G, just to be there...so, caveat emptor, Mr. Delany). I know the B1G has the kind of schools and market penetration to now set record revenue...but what happens when they aren't competitive? This is why I hate it when the B1G thumbs their noses at schools like Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, and even UConn...you get parity and depth, and that's a positive intangible to have in added revenue!

Missouri instantly made the SEC more competitive on the football field......

For the SEC, I think it was more of a risk going after West Virginia, FSU/Clemson, or VT because of the culture thing, the athletic pedigree (how bad is it for WVU to have even the SEC fans consider them hillbillies), and athletics........Are you kidding me, FSU, Clemson, VT and WVU are more SEC like than Missouri in all ways.....Missouri had the TV market.

No doubt, having Mizzou was a smart addition for the SEC in market value. The SEC was saying they wanted to add quality schools and enhance their academic reputation which was comparatively criticized, perhaps too stereotypically at times.

As to the B1G, some of their choices and rationale have been perplexing. Agree with you on that, Cutter. Rutgers was a gamble, but they must have thought it shall pay for itself with TV. I have to think the B1G made its recent move, in part, due to the actions of the ACC and their deal with ND. It's like "we'll show you ACC, Maryland is ours; now deal with that!"

As to WVU, that's probably the ultimate example of the perceptual misfit. What WVU could have delivered to the SEC in market value, along with contemplations about the academic factor, was limited, in regard to what the SEC sought. However, WVU was a natural rival to several ACC schools, and certainly with the BE schools coming into the ACC. The ACC needed enhanced fb pedigree, along with competitive bb, which WVU offered. For the ACC, not taking WVU was perhaps less about the market issue and more about WVU not being an expensive and selective private institution with a high-graded academic reputation. The ACC even passed on state flag-ships such as UCONN and Rutgers. Also, certain ACC schools may have had fears WVU would be too dominant athletically. Now, the ACC has Louisville. Certainly, the ACC has backed-off a little on the prestige argument in the hopes of remaining with the heavy-weights and not lose more members in the process.

While WVU landed in the far-off B12, I don't see any serious commentaries about WVU hooking up with a more eastern-type conference. Nor does the B12 seem motivated to develop bridges to WVU with schools such as Cincy. Maybe the B12 does expect additions from the ACC to happen when the B1G and/or the SEC make the pursuit. The BE paid the price for past bad decisions, and time shall tell if the ACC's expansion path will make them more vulnerable. The B12 stopped their bleeding, for the immediate future; if the ACC can do the same depends on the strength and desires of certain neighboring conferences. However, I would not read too much into Maryland, alone, leaving. Maryland and FSU have had certain financial woes and discontent with the ACC's past operative style. As to FSU specifically, they are back to winning ACC championships and domination. If they sustain such, they may not be so itching to leave. Getting to a conference crown in fb and big-time bowls, could be tougher elsewhere.

So Mizzou was not as competative on the football field as I would have liked. I could bring up injuries or other excuses as to why Mizzou failed on the football field this first SEC season, but I won't. I will admit that Ol' Mizzou has a bit of adjustment to do to become more "SEC" BUT I will say this, CoMO has made the switch and its acting more like an SEC town and the fanbase is full bore into it. Mizzou WILL be more competative on the Basketball court and will grow competative in the other sports. Outside of Florida or Texas, I believe that the state of Missouri is the third largest population state in the SEC (unless Georgia is then we're fourth) and THAT can salt away some of the competition issues.
Mizzou to the SEC was a "hundred year decision" and the admin did do some diligence in asking the power donors if they would support a move to the SEC. They said absolutely (as evidenced by the LARGE donations to the AD over the last year (36 Mil)) and are willing to compete on that stage.
Mizzou is adjusting to the SEC. Mike Alden said it would be around a three year "feeling out" process, and that seems to be about right. I can also tell you that there is ZERO pining for the Big 10. I've asked both high-end and low-end donors and they all say the same general thing..."We're in the SEC and we're going to make THAT work and the Big 10 can go to hell"

I know it's funny they couldn't find bowl eligibility when you play the toughest schedule in all of FBS. I know for anyone who just looks at records, it doesn't scream parity, but considering all seven losses came to bowl teams, with two decent out-of-conference wins, it's better than anything SC (5-6) and Arky (3-7-1) did in their first season in the SEC. I'll take the glib after Missouri's third season, which is how long it took the first of the SC-Arky pair to even stumble into a bowl. Looking at their schedule next year, they'll easily do that.



I didn't say cultural. I said program. And considering the stink UF and USC have against FSU and Clemson, yes, Missouri was the best. What's so great about VT outside of its football? You know, the one with the basketball program that was SO bad the Big East wouldn't let them in it until they paid to get in, and needed "big brother" to force someone to take them? Yeah, great "get" there.



I thought the "blip" of success UMD's program had there for a bit was going to be the start of something sustainable, the kind of thing that would have made the B1G offer a "thanks, but no thanks" thing. The ND move and the B1G-PAC flop forced the B1G to act, but the B1G itself wasn't enough to pry UMD...the drop-off in both revenue sports helped significantly.

I think WVU really needed PSU around to keep that northeastern bloc cohesive. The "snobs" at 'Cuse, BC, and Pitt only humored WVU when it needed to sponsor football (seriously, what does it say about Pitt when they walk from both PSU AND WVU?). The 'Eers didn't have an ally in a better place like VT did, and I think that's why they sit out there in a Great Plains conference. At least someone saw potential there, even if they wanted Pitt more.

As for FSU, I think they are the missing link in the SEC, but what it's going to take to get both sides to finally accept each other without reservation is beyond me. The ACC is relationship of mutual convenience...ACC gets a football-relevant school, and FSU gets to look all tough and brainy. It's the same with any FSU-B1G talks...it's not a fit, other than a financial one.

Really?!?!? REALLY?!?!?!? Mizzou is a good school/program but nowhere near the top of the conference realignment pecking order.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Agreed. Missouri was only brought into the SEC because there was internal pressure to NOT bring in schools from existing states. Does anyone really think that Missouri is a better option than Florida St. would have been for the SEC?

Missouri wanted to join the Big Ten. They were public about that. The Big Ten passed on Missouri since they feel they already have enough coverage in St. Louis via the Illinois alum living there. When the Big Ten looked to expand to 14, they didn't reach out to Missouri...they went after Maryland and Rutgers, a move to keep Penn St. happy...not calling Missouri to see if they were interested.

_________________


@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.

Judging Mizzou as not being a good SEC fit based on one season of fb is an extremely short and unsubstantive measure. Rebuilding years happen for most.