Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #916
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(09-22-2015 05:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-22-2015 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-22-2015 07:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-21-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-21-2015 06:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Did Mizzou get turned down by the Big Ten? Probably. However, it was likely because Nebraska was on the table and the league wasn't moving past 12 at the time. I mean, mercy, the league took Rutgers only a couple of years later.

The odds of Mizzou getting turned down in a vacuum are very low. You don't think the B1G would like to have them on board right now in a perfect world? Of course they would.

Despite that, Mizzou chose the SEC as a very sensible option. Choosing them over the Big 12? Of course, but if Mizzou really wanted the Big Ten that badly then they could have just waited. Would a few more years in the Big 12 have been so bad if that patience would have led to the alleged academic bump from B1G membership? These moves aren't made with short term goals in mind.

Mizzou chose the SEC because the offer was on the table and it was a good offer, thus they took it.

The Big 10 didn't want Missouri because they wanted Eastern expansion and the markets they would bring for the BTN. The Big 10 already had penetration into the Missouri market and compared to Maryland and New Jersey they didn't add enough eyeballs. And at the time the Big 10 thought that they would be able to crack into Virginia and North Carolina. The SEC got Texas A&M when a bigger move of Big 12 names to the ACC was stopped by the Carolina block. The SEC was poised to get Virginia Tech and N.C. State. ESPN helped the SEC land A&M and Missouri instead. A&M alone made up for not landing the North Carolina and Virginia markets which are nevertheless still out there, albeit that they look much less likely now. Missouri was good leave by the Big 10 which got what they wanted, and a nice get for the SEC because of it. But the ACC issue still has both the SEC and Big 10 looking east, only now it also has both jockeying for position should they have to go West again.

I get what you're saying and I do agree that Mizzou was more valuable to the SEC than the Big Ten. However, I do think they are still attractive to the Big Ten in the right circumstance just as FSU, Clemson, or Georgia Tech would be attractive to the SEC despite not adding any new markets.

If the Big Ten moves to 16, 18, or even 20 then Mizzou would have fit nicely under any circumstance. The timing wasn't right and I understand Rutgers helped get more eyeballs in NY/NJ, but I can't buy that the B1G gave a permanent, unequivocal "No" to Mizzou. I just don't see the evidence of that.

The CIC, while a nice organization that provides benefit, still only adds new members when the Big Ten first expands athletically. To me at least, that doesn't sound like an organization that makes or breaks an institution and could lead that institution to the promised land, so to speak. I can't imagine the academicians would be terribly pleased with requiring athletic affiliation in order to qualify for academic inclusion in the group unless, of course, the relative impact was minor and was far outpaced by other sorts of academic partnerships.

I think Mizzou, in part, also chose the SEC because of the demographic trends in the Sun Belt region. Missouri was one of the few states to lose population after the last census. Fifty years from now, this could be a very different country and it's always best to think long term.

I understand your point, but have a few quibbles with reasoning on this.

1. John's Hopkins This move while athletically claimed, was nonetheless a major academic addition. In the future Federal Research Grant money will be even more sought after and more coveted because State budgets are getting thin and State grants are getting tight. There is politics involved at the national levels and the states of Virginia and North Carolina are necessary for the Big 10 to hold onto a few shifting political fortunes.

2. No ESPN held ACC property will ever be available to the SEC unless ESPN is strengthening its hand in the ACC with the right additions and they need to make room. Hence the 2010 plan of bringing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame into the ACC for 16 and giving up N.C. State and Virginia Tech to make room. ESPN told the SEC in late 2011, "we won't pay you a nickel to take F.S.U. or Clemson".

3. The reality is that ESPN holds the purse strings, especially now that we have the SECN. The SEC and ACC will be used to acquire the properties they want and those properties are for the most part the key parts of the Big 12. Who knows about Connecticut? SEC expansion into North Carolina and Virginia will only occur if room is being made for a Western Division of the ACC. Otherwise look west for our next two members.

4. I think ESPN had its original plan on target. Add a mid tier Virginia Tech program to the SEC as the Hokie basketball program does nothing for the ACC. Add N.C. State to the SEC and their basketball is enhanced with easier wins except for against Kentucky, Florida, and hopefully Missouri. Increase the cachet of the ACC football with names like N.D., Texas and Oklahoma and set up rivalries with the SEC up and down the line. Then the two networks you own will become the two top football conferences in the nation with the highest level of competition and the best cross conference rivalries.

In basketball the top brands of the SEC are enhanced by cross conference rivalries with the ACC basketball powers which would now include the birthplace of college basketball, Kansas.

It was a lights out good plan that got hosed internally by the old ACC core and their fears.

5. If we expand west because of ACC recalcitrance and do so with OU and either KU or Texas (or a second Texas school) then the ESPN plan has to change to having one consummate football conference and one consummate basketball conference rather than two more balanced rival conferences. In the Mouse's mind the former is much better than the latter, and I think their right.

6 Because of this line of reasoning F.S.U. and Clemson can never come to the SEC because that would ultimately destroy the ACC as a P5 conference as it relates to football and like it or not that is the sport that counts.

With regard to Johns Hopkins, I think there was certainly a desire to acquire the academic might of that university, but I believe the B1G also wanted a lacrosse conference to facilitate an easier grab into VA and NC. The lacrosse league also created more content for the BTN. Maybe I'm off base, but I don't see why the CIC wouldn't be interested in every single AAU school in the country despite any athletic connection. Nonetheless, the only non-athletic member of the CIC is the University of Chicago and they were a founding member and an athletic member of the Big Ten at the time.

I completely agree with you that FSU and Clemson will never be members of the SEC as long as ESPN is interested in keeping the ACC. I was just saying that the SEC would be interested in them and have shown interest in the past.

I would personally love VT and NC State as members and see the value they bring, however, I think it unlikely that it will play out that way if the ACC survives.

Would you say UConn is a likely member of the ACC in the next round? That seems to be the best fit if ESPN wants to retain them.

I think if the ACC can pick up a solid football program then UConn could get a look provided N.D. doesn't go all in.
09-22-2015 05:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
SEC Expansion - vandiver49 - 10-11-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: If the SEC did expand - 10thMountain - 05-02-2014, 02:49 PM
RE: B12 - jhawkmvp - 05-02-2014, 11:00 PM
RE: - Transic_nyc - 11-04-2014, 02:34 AM
schools making profits - jhawkmvp - 11-12-2014, 12:32 AM
RE: expansion - oliveandblue - 12-03-2014, 12:41 AM
My wild guess - jhawkmvp - 12-09-2014, 12:39 AM
RE: - Transic_nyc - 12-25-2014, 11:04 PM
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 09-22-2015 05:52 PM
RE: If the SEC did expand... - Transic_nyc - 09-19-2015, 01:41 AM
RE - Transic_nyc - 10-21-2017, 03:15 AM
RE: - Transic_nyc - 10-21-2017, 06:35 PM
RE: ? - Transic_nyc - 10-22-2017, 01:02 AM
RE: If the SEC did expand... - Transic_nyc - 03-05-2018, 11:46 AM
RE: If ... - Transic_nyc - 12-18-2020, 01:45 AM
RE: - Transic_nyc - 01-26-2021, 10:59 AM
RE: If - Transic_nyc - 01-27-2021, 12:58 AM
RE: If - Transic_nyc - 03-07-2021, 02:25 PM
RE: If ... - Transic_nyc - 03-09-2021, 06:34 AM



User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.