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

[Ksyrup]

Louisville would probably like the ACC. I know they've done a heckuva job recruiting in Florida. Petrino got more recruits out of Tallahassee than FSU did, for awhile there.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by bronconick

So...the UNC people get to pick over half of the people that run NC State? In that case, they're attached at the hip.

No, the University of North Carolina isn't the one picking the board members. The University SYSTEM is the one picking the members. It's no different than any other state. The University of Missouri system encompasses several universities. The schools are very much separate entities, though they are under a single system. There may be some political wrangling to keep them together, but the board doesn't have any attachment to UNC in any way.

[MrBug708]

So public schools that have "state" in their name and ones that don't are under the same umbrella in other states?

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So public schools that have "state" in their name and ones that don't are under the same umbrella in other states?

That's true for Oregon, don't know about anyone else.

[Toddzilla]

re: The ACC

As long as they have UNC, Duke, NC State, UVA, MD, and Wake, they've got the nucleus of a solid basketball conference, and you gotta believe after 3 football teams got the NCAA involved, the ACC would be perfectly happy to go all sports sans-football.

[Ksyrup]

That would be pretty dumb. I think even basketball schools would want to keep the football money flowing.

[Toddzilla]

If they want to survive as a "big-6" football conference, then they probably need to get proactive and not wait to pick up the scraps. Instead of adding 4 teams to go to 16, they may find themselves at 9-10 teams needing to add leftovers just to get back to 12.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So public schools that have "state" in their name and ones that don't are under the same umbrella in other states?

Sometimes, definitely true in Georgia. There are 35 institutions that are part of the University System of Georgia. All operate independently to some degree but goals, general policies and (most importantly) funding via the legislature are handled by the USG. According to Wiki it's the 4th largest system (35 schools, 311k students) in the U.S., behind Ohio, NY, and Cali.

The University of Georgia is the obvious flagship but Georgia Tech (officially the Georgia Institute of Technology) is there too. Georgia State University isn't the flagship but has "state" in the name. There are 14 "XYZ College" (usually a city or region name) only two of which include "state"in their name. The reverse is true for anything that ends in "University", more than a dozen of those but only Georgia Southern doesn't have "state" in the name.

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So public schools that have "state" in their name and ones that don't are under the same umbrella in other states?

true for Arizona....all the "universities" here have the exact same entrance requirements. Same for Arizona State to Northern Arizona to U of Arizona. Not a difference. It's a big myth that they aren't the same, but they are.

[SackAttack]

I just feel like the Big Ten makes more geographic sense for Missouri. This SEC stuff just makes me scratch my head. The hoops program might benefit but I'm having a hard time seeing where the football program has the weight to be competitive with Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Georgia etc in recruiting. Better to be an also-ran in a power conference than a power team in a non-BCS, I guess?

[Ksyrup]

This has nothingto do with being competitive in sports. It's all about the money. Where does TAMU expect to palce inteh western division of the SEC year after year?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Better to be an also-ran in a power conference than a power team in a non-BCS, I guess?

That is always the case. More money, get seen more, and you always have a chance to slip into a big stage if the larger schools have bad years and you have a good one. You can win a non-bcs conference every year and not get what a 7-6 team in the SEC/big10/pac12 gets.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sometimes, definitely true in Georgia. There are 35 institutions that are part of the University System of Georgia. All operate independently to some degree but goals, general policies and (most importantly) funding via the legislature are handled by the USG. According to Wiki it's the 4th largest system (35 schools, 311k students) in the U.S., behind Ohio, NY, and Cali.

The University of Georgia is the obvious flagship but Georgia Tech (officially the Georgia Institute of Technology) is there too. Georgia State University isn't the flagship but has "state" in the name. There are 14 "XYZ College" (usually a city or region name) only two of which include "state"in their name. The reverse is true for anything that ends in "University", more than a dozen of those but only Georgia Southern doesn't have "state" in the name.

Got it. The UC's here are all under one umbrella. The other is the CSU system which is the Cal State LA's, San Diego St's, and the Polytechnic schools in California. The Poly's are the highest rated CSU school's, but still, on average, lag pretty far behind the UC's

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Got it. The UC's here are all under one umbrella. The other is the CSU system which is the Cal State LA's, San Diego St's, and the Polytechnic schools in California. The Poly's are the highest rated CSU school's, but still, on average, lag pretty far behind the UC's

Yeah, California is different in that it has two collegiate systems. Most states only have one, I believe.

[britrock88]

(removed redundant UNC system speak)

On total speculation, I would think of the southerly public schools -- Clemson, GT, FSU -- as potential targets, since they don't have dance partners a la UNC/NCSU and UVA/VT. But the hunger to add more states could throw that out the window, leaving the SEC with... Maryland and West Virginia? Duke and Wake? Or maybe one of the pairs could be convinced to bolt.

---

No matter what happens, I'm expecting, in another few years, the kind of fallout that occurred after the WAC tried to maintain 16 teams in the late '90s. THAT realignment will be the interesting story.

[cuervo72]

I doubt Duke goes anywhere w/o UNC.

Wake is actually an interesting thought. I'm not sure they add much, but they don't really threaten much either. They'd be like another Vandy.

[Ksyrup]

I would say that based on this, Missouri won't have a choice of conferences. Sounds like the Big 10 is publicly saying they will be reactive, not proactive, so it's hard to figure how TAMU going to SEC is a "significant shift" that would force them to make a move.

The Big Ten announced on Friday that despite all the whispers about 16-team superconferences, anyone expecting the Big Ten to make a seismic shift in the conference alignment landscape is probably going to be left waiting. As the Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) noted in a statement, the conference is "not actively engaged in conference expansion at this time, or at any time in the foreseeable future, barring a significant shift in the current intercollegiate athletic landscape."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So public schools that have "state" in their name and ones that don't are under the same umbrella in other states?

Yes, that's generally the case.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I would say that based on this, Missouri won't have a choice of conferences. Sounds like the Big 10 is publicly saying they will be reactive, not proactive, so it's hard to figure how TAMU going to SEC is a "significant shift" that would force them to make a move.

That announcement is no different than the SEC statement a couple weeks ago. Big 10 is positioning itself to avoid any tampering when the changes start. With that said, the latest I've seen is that Missouri doesn't have an offer in hand from the Big 10.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

double dola

Looks like the Tech poster on Tigerboard was spot-on again. AggieYell.com reporting that SEC brass was in College Station yesterday and today to finalize deal. Expected to make it official before September 1st.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

With that said, the latest I've seen is that Missouri doesn't have an offer in hand from the Big 10.

Good to know the Big 10 is handing out offers to just anyone. I'll keep checking the mailbox for my invite.

[RedKingGold]

By the way, I'm not discounting that Missouri "might" some day end up in the Big 10 because it is a solid fit geographically. However, the idea that it's a "done deal", even in whisper mode, is beyond laughable.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Good to know the Big 10 is handing out offers to just anyone. I'll keep checking the mailbox for my invite.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but aren't you reading his statement wrong?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but aren't you reading his statement wrong?

Maybe he was reading page 12 or 27 or 44 of this thread when he posted that.

[sooner333]

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have two separate Boards of Regents. OU has the flagship and three smaller universities.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A bit more info from Texas Tech poster on Tigerboard.........

Sorry for the lack of info over the last couple of days.

I hope to hear from Mondo (TX state rep) by Monday, but there is still discussion about sharing of revenues for the initial years of aTm membership and a couple of other points related to potential TV contract liabilities from the aTm side that are being evaluated.

The political wrangling is much crazier than is publicly known.

Dodds (no need to mention Beebe any longer) was shot down by BYU as a potential invite to the B12, however Swarbrick(ND) and Dodds are close and talk weekly. I doubt ND goes to the B12, but there is much more of a connection there than people realize, so such talk isn't as crazy as it might sound.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A bit more info from Texas Tech poster on Tigerboard.........

Well he is off on the being shot down by BYU...there has nothing serious being discussed yet (preliminary, are you interested calls, told to call back when you have something more concrete)...however, to be honest, ESPN is pulling the strings at BYU now and the rumor is they have invested to much in BYU and independence and they like having their new toy.

[DeToxRox]

ND fans will have a heart attack if they joined any conference but the Big 10 (Big East to an extent too I am sure).

ND fans will object to going to games in Lubbick, Ames, Stillwater and Manhattan. There was a lot of anger about playing USF on the road.

I just don't see their stodgy donors putting up with it.

[Young Drachma]

ND to the Big 12. Right. I think that guy needs to slowly put down his "source" aka crack pipe.

[tarcone]

Yeah, but the ADs are friends. They talk almost every week. Come on, Texas can get what ever it wants.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Yeah, but the ADs are friends. They talk almost every week. Come on, Texas can get what ever it wants.

Dodds has actually gotten Swarbrick to commit to the Big XII on 4 different occasions, but has failed to close the deal.

*Dodds on the 5th fairway, 170 yards out*

"You sink this shot for an eagle, and Notre Dame will join the Big XII."

*Dodds over swings in excitement, hits in to the water*

"Sucker."

[MrBug708]

SMU to the Big-12?

[RedKingGold]

Maybe ND = North Dakota State? I can see the Big 12 attracting that caliber of a program.

[dawgfan]

Jon Wilner's take (based on talking to experts in the biz):

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/college...re/#more-20808

FWIW, Wilner has been on top of the sports biz stuff as it relates the Pac-10/12, so I'm giving his info a lot of weight.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Jon Wilner's take (based on talking to experts in the biz):

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/college...re/#more-20808

FWIW, Wilner has been on top of the sports biz stuff as it relates the Pac-10/12, so I'm giving his info a lot of weight.

Pretty accurate except for the sources saying A&M may still not go. A&M is 100% gone. Even UT will admit that at this point.

Here's an article detailing the same thing that the TT poster on Tigerboard said. Only the fine print remains on the A&M move.

Legally speaking: Aggies-to-SEC in fine-print stage - San Antonio Express-News

And more proof that no matter what conference, UT continues to act like like UT. They don't seem to mind that they're the sole reason a conference is breaking up. Yet they still want to keep it together because they know this is the only conference that will allow them to pull these stunts.........

Longhorn Network's push for high school highlights irks Big 12 rivals

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Announcement expected this week per AggieInsider......

@HopWebsider David Sandhop
A&M about ready to get this started. Expect announcement within the next two days. Wed at latest. Hoping for SEC vote by Friday. #gigem

[CU Tiger]

Mbbf honest question and not knocking here.
In your eyes where do you rate mizzou's relevance/prestige/place on a national scale?

This has little to do with this thread and more about an argument on another board, but top 15, top 20, to 40 ...what is your perspective of their place in the landscape.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Mbbf honest question and not knocking here.
In your eyes where do you rate mizzou's relevance/prestige/place on a national scale?

This has little to do with this thread and more about an argument on another board, but top 15, top 20, to 40 ...what is your perspective of their place in the landscape.

In the money sports, Mizzou has been a regular Top 25 football/basketball team. We need that breakthrough in either sport to reach the next level. Nearly made the National Championship game in football a few years back. Have had a couple of Elite 8 near misses. Just need to make that football championship or a Final Four to help get the program over the hump.

Until then, we're a good program who hasn't had that big moment that you need to push the program to a higher level. We'll have to be happy with Top 25 until then.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just need to make that football championship or a Final Four to help get the program over the hump.

Would you settle for a BCS berth?

[MJ4H]

They did enough for one a few years back. In my personal opinion, that qualifies.

[tarcone]

Texas told the BCS to choose Kansas.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Would you settle for a BCS berth?

However you feel about MBBF, you can't deny that Mizzou got straight screwed on that Orange Bowl fiasco.

There was no good reason Mizzou should've gotten jumped by Kansas just because OU knocked Mizzou out of the national title game.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

However you feel about MBBF, you can't deny that Mizzou got straight screwed on that Orange Bowl fiasco.

There was no good reason Mizzou should've gotten jumped by Kansas just because OU knocked Mizzou out of the national title game.

Agreed..and fwiw my opinion of mizzou is 25-30.....pretty hot debate on a rivals board, one side claiming clearly to 20 ( this discussion s fb only fwiw) and th otter side says 35-40 I think both are over the top....so thought I'd ask a mu fan.

Would make an interesting thread list the top 40 crb programs either in order or by 10 group

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

However you feel about MBBF, you can't deny that Mizzou got straight screwed on that Orange Bowl fiasco.

There was no good reason Mizzou should've gotten jumped by Kansas just because OU knocked Mizzou out of the national title game.

I agree with that.

[tarcone]

They beat Kansas, also. That was huge screw job that year.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Agreed..and fwiw my opinion of mizzou is 25-30.....pretty hot debate on a rivals board, one side claiming clearly to 20 ( this discussion s fb only fwiw) and th otter side says 35-40 I think both are over the top....so thought I'd ask a mu fan.

Would make an interesting thread list the top 40 crb programs either in order or by 10 group

As a Mizzou alum, I wouldn't quibble with 25-30 with an arrow pointing upward. 35-40 is underrating the program's current state.

As far as prestige in the Big 12, I'd currently put Mizzou in a category with A&M and OSU. Clearly a level below Texas and OU. A&M has more tradition but Missouri has had as much if not more success than A&M in more recent years.

When thinking of Missouri peers in football right now, I think of Arkansas, Michigan State or Virginia to give some examples. We're not Florida, Notre Dame or even Michigan, but we're a four-star close to becoming a five-star prestige, to borrow from EA Sports parlance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

When thinking of Missouri peers in football right now, I think of Arkansas, Michigan State or Virginia to give some examples. We're not Florida, Notre Dame or even Michigan, but we're a four-star close to becoming a five-star prestige, to borrow from EA Sports parlance.

You're saying that Arkansas & Virginia are 4* close to 5* prestige? In FOOTBALL?

I mean, if that's where you say Mizzou is and those are your peers ... I gotta be misreading that somehow, right? Arkansas hasn't won a major bowl game since 1999 & UVA has only 1 winning season in the last 5 years and hasn't won a notable bowl since the Peach in 1995 (kids born that night already have their learner's permits)

Either I'm not following you or the EA Sports prestige system is more fucked up than I realized.

[Swaggs]

Stewart Mandel did an article a few years ago (Aug. 2007), where he classified all the BCS teams in four different "tiers." It obviously isn't perfect, but is a good take-off point: SI.com - Writers - Stewart Mandel: Dividing BCS teams into four-tier hierarchy and more - Wednesday August 8, 2007 1:42PM

Kings
Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Tennessee*, Texas and USC.

* Tennessee is the lone school in the group that caused any hesitation. The Vols would have been a no-brainer 10 years ago, but they have fallen off the map a bit lately. In the end, I figured those 100 fans in Montana still know "Rocky Top," the checkered end zones and that Peyton Manning went there.

Barons
Auburn, Clemson, Colorado, Georgia, LSU*, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington and Wisconsin.

* While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings. However, if the Tigers were to add another national title here in the next couple of years, they may well graduate to that group.

Knights
Arizona State, Arkansas, Boston College, Cal, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse*, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington State.

* In normal times, Syracuse would qualify as one of the barons, but they're just so darn bad and so irrelevant right now.

Peasants
Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Northwestern, Rutgers*, South Florida*, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt.

* Rutgers is another program that could be on its way up a tier, and South Florida is here by default because it's essentially a start-up.

If you look at a list like this, I'd say it is fair to put Missouri anywhere between 20-35 or 40 (I'd say the same about WVU, for what it is worth). The tough thing is that there are 10-15 college sports "elites" that are always going to be at the top of the list. So, while a Missouri or WVU or Cal may have a long, sustained period of success, they still aren't going to crack that list when it comes to relevance/prestige/place on a national scale (unless they start reeling off national titles in bunches, like a team like Oregon could possibly do if they avoid the heavy sanctions).

It gets a lot more complicated when you factor basketball into the equation (how much value does that add to Duke or UConn or UCLA?).

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're saying that Arkansas & Virginia are 4* close to 5* prestige? In FOOTBALL?

I mean, if that's where you say Mizzou is and those are your peers ... I gotta be misreading that somehow, right? Arkansas hasn't won a major bowl game since 1999 & UVA has only 1 winning season in the last 5 years and hasn't won a notable bowl since the Peach in 1995 (kids born that night already have their learner's permits)

Either I'm not following you or the EA Sports prestige system is more fucked up than I realized.

I'd say that the only 5-star schools are the anchors of the best BCS conferences. I'm not even sure that I'd call Auburn or Oregon 5-star programs just yet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Stewart Mandel did an article a few years ago (Aug. 2007), where he classified all the BCS teams in four different "tiers." It obviously isn't perfect, but is a good take-off point:

Interesting, four years old but darned if I don't think it's still pretty close to accurate. A few of the 3rd tier have slipped, a few of the 4th tier have climbed, very little movement in the upper two.