Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[tarcone]

Dumb and Dumber

[KWhit]

National and Championships

[CU Tiger]

I heard ole miss was pushing for
Stars and Bars
Or maybe
Hoods and Sheets.....


I keed obviously.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Boy, the Texas 'well-placed sources' have gone from wrong to laughably delusional at this point..........

Austin sports news and Longhorns | Statesman.com

“I think that’s accurate,” one school official told the American-Statesman. “I’d say West Virginia is the leader in the clubhouse. I think we’ll come out better than before. I’d rather be with someone who wants to be with our conference than anybody who doesn’t.”

Asked why the Big 12 would be upgraded, the official said, “West Virginia has better football than Missouri, better basketball than Missouri, a better budget than Missouri and more passion among its fans than Missouri. They’re better, anyway you turn ‘em. The travel’s not good (to Morgantown, W. Va) but that’s it.”

Even if we go with what most would agree is relatively even terms on the athletic end, the loss of Mizzou with a replacement of West Virginia is a large downgrade to the Big 12 from an academic perspective. The move of Mizzou to the SEC would mean that the conference that generally has a weak academic reputation would have the same number of AAU universities as the Big 12 and a higher average academic rating than the Big 12.

The well-placed administrator said Missouri would probably have to remain in the Big 12 next school year because it’s getting so late in the process to find a replacement quickly and an early Missouri exit could lead to financial liability for that school.

How out of touch is this 'administrator'? MU's Deaton made it perfectly clear in his statements last Friday that any decision to move would mean MU would be playing elsewhere next year. These admins in the Big 12 seem to be taking the Dan Beebe approach to the situation. Just keep saying things that are contrary to what is actually happening in the hopes that it will somehow make those statements happen.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

PowerMizzou reporting that Mizzou will withdraw from the Big 12 tomorrow.......

PowerMizzou.com - Next step awaits

[tarcone]

What happens if Mizzou withdraws from the Big 12 and then the SEC decides not to take them?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What happens if Mizzou withdraws from the Big 12 and then the SEC decides not to take them?

I laugh harder than I've ever laughed in my entire life.


Tho really it does seem like everything's coming up Mizzou now.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What happens if Mizzou withdraws from the Big 12 and then the SEC decides not to take them?

This thread will blow up to 200 pages within an hour of the announcement.

[MJ4H]

Didn't the link say conditionally withdraw from the big 12 (contingent on acceptance into another conference)?

That said, I doubt they would do it without knowing 100% they are in.

[sooner333]

Missouri can leave whenever they want, but it sounds like the Big 12 isn't going to deal with them on the fee if they want to leave for next year. If Missouri still leaves without paying the fee, they would be subject to litigation. That's my read into it, anyway.

[Swaggs]

Darkhorse Prediction: Mizzou to the Ivy League!

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Darkhorse Prediction: Mizzou to the Ivy League!

I hear the Ivy League wants Mizzou so they can improve the conference's overall academic standing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What happens if Mizzou withdraws from the Big 12 and then the SEC decides not to take them?

Then Mizzou would return to the Big 12. It's a conditional withdrawal.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just keep saying things that are contrary to what is actually happening in the hopes that it will somehow make those statements happen.

This should be engraved on a plaque that hangs over your computer.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

This should be engraved on a plaque that hangs over your computer.

Yeah, the irony of that statement coming from him is epic.

[Ksyrup]

Regardless of all the fun had at MBBF's expense, what he posted from the Austin paper is clearly a face-saving, damage control placement piece from the Texas/Big 12 (is that redundant?) side, though. It's kinda laughable, actually - not so much for what they say, but the transparent need to downplay Mizzou leaving and up-sell the (or a) likely replacement. It's like talking down the chick who dumped you and acting like the girl you decided to take out for a date the next night could possibly be "the one."

[MJ4H]

Did Missouri withdraw yet?

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Did Missouri withdraw yet?

It's absolutely positively 100% sure they did not withdraw however a tiger board poster has stated there is a meeting to discuss the invitation of the invitation to withdraw...

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Regardless of all the fun had at MBBF's expense, what he posted from the Austin paper is clearly a face-saving, damage control placement piece from the Texas/Big 12 (is that redundant?) side, though. It's kinda laughable, actually - not so much for what they say, but the transparent need to downplay Mizzou leaving and up-sell the (or a) likely replacement. It's like talking down the chick who dumped you and acting like the girl you decided to take out for a date the next night could possibly be "the one."

But I mean, honestly, what does the conference lose if Mizzou leaves and is replaced with WVU (and they add say UL or somebody). Net loss aTM + Mizzou, net gain WVU + TCU...I'm not sure that's terrible for the conference from a money or football standpoint.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

But I mean, honestly, what does the conference lose if Mizzou leaves and is replaced with WVU (and they add say UL or somebody). Net loss aTM + Mizzou, net gain WVU + TCU...I'm not sure that's terrible for the conference from a money or football standpoint.

From the money perspective, it's a large loss. They lose two of the top 30 TV markets in the country. Probably a better way of stating it is opportunity lost by the Big 12. The conference contract renegotiation of first and second tier rights was expected to be a very large increase. With the loss of the sets in Missouri and a portion of A&M, they lose a good chunk of their market and likely won't see anything near what they were expecting before the defections over the last 18 months.

On the other side, the SEC is expecting a huge increase in their contracts. First and second tier are currently being renegotiated and are expected to increase dramatically. In addition, a SEC network is expected on third tier, which should also increase the TV revenue for the conference. Early estimates in the Mizzou report that was leaked was a $12M increase in yearly revenue. They feel that's very conservative.

If Mizzou wouldn't have had a down year this year, the football argument would be a no-brainer loss for the Big 12. With the rough year for Mizzou thus far (SOS is top 5 in the nation), you could argue that it might be even, though TCU hasn't exactly set the world on fire either after a good run over the past few years much like Mizzou.

Even trade on the football field might have some merit. But from the money perspective, the Big 12 took a huge loss from what might have been.

[sooner333]

I don't think the Big 12 "loses" Kansas City.

[corbes]

No departure by Missouri Tigers at Big 12 meeting - ESPN

[bronconick]

I don't think there's a short term expectation for a SEC network. Florida sold their 3rd tier rights for about a decade at $10 million a year. Georgia's around $11 million. As of two years ago Alabama, Tennessee, LSU and Kentucky were making $6-8 million on theirs.

The irony was always that Texas wasn't interested in the one conference that would have no problem with the Longhorn Network.

[cartman]

Replacing A&M and Mizzou with TCU and WVU would definitely be an upgrade in football. You'd be trading two teams that combined for 1 BCS game appearance and 0-1 record with two teams that have 4 BCS game appearances between them with a 3-1 record. And by MBBF's deeply flawed logic, the Big 12 would be picking up the DFW TV market, a top 10 market.

[Ksyrup]

I don't think any of these moves are being made to upgrade the product on the field. Otherwise, why would the ACC add Syracuse and Pitt?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't think any of these moves are being made to upgrade the product on the field. Otherwise, why would the ACC add Syracuse and Pitt?

It also shows the limited importance of media market size in college sports.

[Swaggs]

It is a curious situation.

If you look at the Big Ten, they neglected markets and went for a traditional powerhouse in Nebraska.

The Pac 12 took Colorado, which appeard to be largely based on adding a large market, but then also added Utah which added kind of a middle market (SLC is #32, but Utah is one of the least populated states in the country) and a recently strong football program.

The ACC's recent moves, with the exception of VPI and Miami, have been largely rooted in markets, rather than program strength. It can also be argued that they have methodically killed off their competition from the Big East.

The SEC looks to be going solely on adding markets and opening up new territories (I'm guessing recruiting in Texas will be utilized a lot more now).

The Big 12 seems to be going more on adding program strength over markets.

There really does not appear to be one driving factor in expansion, as each conference seems to have its own priorities.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

From the money perspective, it's a large loss. They lose two of the top 30 TV markets in the country.

And once again I feel forced to point out that you (along with any number of pundits) are overestimating the national impact of any market not named New York or LA.

Let me show you why, with the help of something I found on a message board talking about how StL was a Missouri market, not an Illinois market.

10-18-08 at Texas 9.4
12-6-08 vs. Oklahoma 11.7
10-24-09 Texas 5.3
11-28-09 vs. Kansas 9.4
Average 9.0

Pretty good numbers for any CFB game.

Now let's look at the national CFB ratings
NCAA Week 7: ABC Up Double-Digits Through Seven Weeks | Sports Media Watch
ABC averaged a 3.7 rating and 5.730 million viewers for regular season college football coverage through Week 7 of the season,

Current TV HH figure for St.Louis is 1,253,920, so a 9.0 rtg = 112,853 HH
Typically, a HH is going to generate somewhere between 1.25 & 1.50 viewers for most programs (we're increasingly a nation that goes to separate corners to watch TV), but let's be generous & go with 2 viewers for every CFB watching HH in St. Louis.

5.730 million viewers average game vs 225,706 viewers lost when St.Louis abandons watching any B12 game (a staple of ABC CFB coverage). That's basically 4% of the audience ... or not even enough viewers to lower the 3.7 rating, not even if the entire college football viewing population of the entire St. Louis market vowed to never watch a game on ABC again. And that's if we give credit to St. Louis for watching all college football at the same level they watch Mizzou.

By the same token, let's pretend that no one in St Louis has watched a game all year (since Mizzou isn't on every single week) but suddenly they flocked to their TV's at the normal pace for the Tigers. It still doesn't move the national number.

And Kansas City is only 3/4ths the size of St. Louis (despite being #31 to StL's #21), so let's not even bother to go there.

Bottom line: on a national basis, the entire CFB viewing population of St.Louis doesn't mean jack shit to the big picture for ABC.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

each conference seems to have its own priorities.

Also, the insider blogs come up with their own reasons, which adds another layer to the public perception.

[Swaggs]

Someone posted this on the WVU board and I thought it was funny:

Missouri reminds me of my cat. He sits by the sliding glass door wanting out, so I let him out, then he sits by the sliding glass door wanting in.

[Logan]

Wait wait...so if this weren't a "down year" for Missouri football, they would be a better football program than West Virginia?

Now I've officially read it all.

[Marmel]

No, I think a down year in Missouri is equal to a good year in West Virginia. Plus, Mizzou has like the #5 toughest schedule, so this is not really a down year.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Logan

Wait wait...so if this weren't a "down year" for Missouri football, they would be a better football program than West Virginia?

Now I've officially read it all.

That's not what I said at all, but feel free to mold it into something it wasn't.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by corbes

No departure by Missouri Tigers at Big 12 meeting - ESPN

Deaton was interviewed tonight on the local news. Said that the Big 12 was headed in the right direction and he wished them well. That's not the comment of a leader planning on staying in the conference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by bronconick

I don't think there's a short term expectation for a SEC network. Florida sold their 3rd tier rights for about a decade at $10 million a year. Georgia's around $11 million. As of two years ago Alabama, Tennessee, LSU and Kentucky were making $6-8 million on theirs.

The irony was always that Texas wasn't interested in the one conference that would have no problem with the Longhorn Network.

Clay Travis over at OutkickTheCoverage.com has reported for several months now that the sole reason for the expansion is a SEC network.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by corbes

No departure by Missouri Tigers at Big 12 meeting - ESPN

So let me get this straight. Missouri wants out due to big bad Texas. SEC has 13 teams. Yet, Missouri can't figure out if it wants to leave, or not. I think I'm done giving Missouri the benefit of the doubt.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Replacing A&M and Mizzou with TCU and WVU would definitely be an upgrade in football. You'd be trading two teams that combined for 1 BCS game appearance and 0-1 record with two teams that have 4 BCS game appearances between them with a 3-1 record.

Your point speaks to how flawed the system is. If Mizzou and A&M was in WVU or TCU's conferences, those numbers could be easily reversed.

Also, some have quickly forgotten that Nebraska and Colorado were also lost by the conference. Losing NU/CU/MU/A&M and gaining WVU and TCU is a huge downgrade overall. You're losing three good programs and replacing them with quality teams of lower BCS conferences. There's a reason those two schools see an unstable Big 12 as an upgrade. That's saying something.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If Mizzou wouldn't have had a down year this year, the football argument would be a no-brainer loss for the Big 12. With the rough year for Mizzou thus far (SOS is top 5 in the nation), you could argue that it might be even, though TCU hasn't exactly set the world on fire either after a good run over the past few years much like Mizzou.

Even trade on the football field might have some merit.

Much like Mizzou, except Mizzou isn't coming off two undefeated regular seasons and BCS bids.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's not what I said at all, but feel free to mold it into something it wasn't.

Huh?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Deaton was interviewed tonight on the local news. Said that the Big 12 was headed in the right direction and he wished them well. That's not the comment of a leader planning on staying in the conference.

So what's with all the stalling?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

So what's with all the stalling?

It's an excellent question. There's MU fans asking that question every single day. They're going to make the right decision in the end. I'm sure of that. I just think they're doing an extremely poor job of reaching that end point. They're far too concerned about what others think of their reasoning/decision.

[cartman]

Keep fucking that chicken, MBBF!

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's an excellent question. There's MU fans asking that question every single day. They're going to make the right decision in the end. I'm sure of that. I just think they're doing an extremely poor job of reaching that end point. They're far too concerned about what others think of their reasoning/decision.

AKA, they have no balls.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Much like Mizzou, except Mizzou isn't coming off two undefeated regular seasons and BCS bids.

I appreciate what they've done in their conference. If the Mizzou team in 2007 was in that conference or TCU's, they would have waltzed into the National Championship given the lower quality of teams in those conferences. You still have to play the games and WVU has done that and done it well, but let's stop pretending that the quality of teams on a weekly basis in either of those conferences comes close to the Big 12 or even the SEC.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I appreciate what they've done in their conference. If the Mizzou team in 2007 was in that conference or TCU's, they would have waltzed into the National Championship given the lower quality of teams in those conferences. You still have to play the games and WVU has done that and done it well, but let's stop pretending that the quality of teams on a weekly basis in either of those conferences comes close to the Big 12 or even the SEC.

Nevermind that Mizzou was playing in the Big 12 North, which competition-wise was comparable with the Big East. In the last 5 seasons (the best years in Mizzou football) against the Big 12 South, which is much closer to the SEC West than the Big East, the Tigers were 7-11. This season they aren't shielded from having to play every team in the former Big 12 South, and they are suffering. Their best seasons in the Big 12 were when they didn't have to play both Texas and Oklahoma during the regular season.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I appreciate what they've done in their conference. If the Mizzou team in 2007 was in that conference or TCU's, they would have waltzed into the National Championship given the lower quality of teams in those conferences. You still have to play the games and WVU has done that and done it well, but let's stop pretending that the quality of teams on a weekly basis in either of those conferences comes close to the Big 12 or even the SEC.

The Big 12 North hasn't exactly been murderer's row during the golden era of football that Mizzou is currently enjoying. Nebraska stunk through the Callahan years and Kansas State struggled during Snyder's retirement. The 2007 Mizzou team had a nice year but they lost twice to the same Oklahoma team that WVU clubbed in the Fiesta Bowl, so forgive me if I am hesitant to crown that particular team with any hypothesized conference titles just yet.

[digamma]

And let's face it, the SEC isn't necessarily looking for competitive football programs. Looking back, Arkansas and South Carolina were a combined 18-25-2 in the two seasons prior to joining the SEC. Still waiting for one of them to win a conference title.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Clay Travis over at OutkickTheCoverage.com has reported for several months now that the sole reason for the expansion is a SEC network.

And his last article even admits

In order for a network to really make sense, those local multimedia rights would need to be rolled up into the SEC Network. Since every school has its own local rights deal that provides a bit of complexity. Namely, each of those local multimedia rights packages would need to be rolled into the SEC Network as they expire.

So, no Florida games on the SEC Network for about 7 more years. That's only the 2nd biggest state in the SEC footprint and the biggest state where the SEC school is the "main" school.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

So what's with all the stalling?

They still don't have the votes in the SEC for an invite.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

Replacing A&M and Mizzou with TCU and WVU would definitely be an upgrade in football. You'd be trading two teams that combined for 1 BCS game appearance and 0-1 record with two teams that have 4 BCS game appearances between them with a 3-1 record. And by MBBF's deeply flawed logic, the Big 12 would be picking up the DFW TV market, a top 10 market.

The Big 12 would be upgrading, yeah, but I hate that "BCS game appearance" canard.

Missouri got flat screwed out of a BCS appearance in 2008. I mean, I don't care how much you want to make fun of MBBF, or the University at-large, but show me another example in BCS history where a team went from #1 in the nation before its final non-bowl game of the season to a second-tier bowl in favor of a team it had beaten head-to-head two games previously.

I'll wait.

According to Orange Bowl vice president of media and public relations Larry Wahl, the 36-28 win over KU and the Tigers’ North Division title weighed in MU’s favor. But the biggest reason that the Jayhawks are heading to Miami while the Tigers trek to Dallas was that MU had two losses and KU had just one.

Yeah. Missouri lost to OU in the regular season and couldn't get over the hump against them in the Big XII title game. They beat Kansas head-to-head to even GO to that title game, but somehow not being good enough to lose that title game was more deserving of the Orange Bowl than...being good enough to play the extra game.

I'm not gonna sit here and say Missouri would've won the game had they gone to the Orange Bowl. That's speculation at best.

But there are exactly two plausible reasons to hold Missouri's lack of a BCS appearance against them: being a Jayhawk fan, or wanting an excuse to make fun of the Tigers. If either one's the case, go nuts.

Otherwise, you're just reaching for the low-hanging fruit.

[cartman]

Ok, for the sake of argument, Mizzou gets the 2008 BCS appearance. That still means that both of the incoming teams would each have the same number of BCS game appearances as Mizzou and A&M combined. How in the world is that considered a cheap shot?