Officially, on this day in 2012, Texas A&M and Missouri joined the league.

Here are the conference records for all 14 teams since that season:

Pat Smith produced a nice graphic for easy reference

A&M is 34-30 during that time which places them 5th during that period. Mizzou is 30-34 which places them 9th since that time.

(07-01-2020 09:35 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Officially, on this day in 2012, Texas A&M and Missouri joined the league.

Here are the conference records for all 14 teams since that season:

Pat Smith produced a nice graphic for easy reference

A&M is 34-30 during that time which places them 5th during that period. Mizzou is 30-34 which places them 9th since that time.

Well it's pretty much the standard bell curve, but boy does Arkansas look like the worst addition with this data and that of viewership.

Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

The interesting part is that statistically the realignment of 2012 is stronger than the realignment of 1992.

(07-01-2020 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

Of
The interesting part is that statistically the realignment of 2012 is stronger than the realignment of 1992.

True. Arkansas won the west twice, but Mizzou won the East twice and A&M beat ‘Bama with Manziel that one year.

(07-01-2020 04:19 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

Of
The interesting part is that statistically the realignment of 2012 is stronger than the realignment of 1992.

True. Arkansas won the west twice, but Mizzou won the East twice and A&M beat ‘Bama with Manziel that one year.

Oh I don't want to kick anybody out and certainly have no problem with the Hogs as they have great fans, I was just shocked at the data. The only school I want to make a decision is Vanderbilt. They need to show just the slightest effort in terms of providing facilities upgrades and trying to compete, at least in all required sports (no softball). I want them to stay as they are a big part of our history, but they have to contribute and not just freeload on equal shares.

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

As OU’s President Boren said at that time, OU would have seriously considered the offer the SEC sent A&M and OU had either Texas or Oklahoma State had also been offered.

Virginia Tech was a recent addition to the ACC due strong state politics persuading University of Virginia to pressure the ACC into adding their instate rivals. It might have been too soon for VPI leaders to ask the same folks in Richmond to let them jump ships again.

(07-02-2020 03:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

As OU’s President Boren said at that time, OU would have seriously considered the offer the SEC sent A&M and OU had either Texas or Oklahoma State had also been offered.

Virginia Tech was a recent addition to the ACC due strong state politics persuading University of Virginia to pressure the ACC into adding their instate rivals. It might have been too soon for VPI leaders to ask the same folks in Richmond to let them jump ships again.

Two separate matters to which I offer two wholly separate comments:

1. If Vanderbilt won't help us make them a partial for football and let them participate in everything else as a full member (essentially a N.D. deal). Then offer Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. We are at 16 full members and the problem is solved.

2. If Virginia ever needs to head to the Big 10 for a lot more revenue, then Virginia Tech to the SEC would be embraced by their home state as it would guarantee maximum revenue for both of their main state schools.

Either of those scenarios not only could work, but probably would work. And remember if Virginia Tech can leave then so too could any other ACC school because they would have had to vote to disband to do it and as I illustrated Virginia would likely have to be leaving before Virginia Tech could.

(07-02-2020 03:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

As OU’s President Boren said at that time, OU would have seriously considered the offer the SEC sent A&M and OU had either Texas or Oklahoma State had also been offered.

Virginia Tech was a recent addition to the ACC due strong state politics persuading University of Virginia to pressure the ACC into adding their instate rivals. It might have been too soon for VPI leaders to ask the same folks in Richmond to let them jump ships again.

It's interesting when you think about it.

Apparently Texas did not receive an invitation?

I'm sure there have been back-channel discussions, but you'd think the SEC would have made that an option so that makes me wonder.

1. Would Texas A&M have backed out had Texas been in serious talks?
2. Was Texas so preoccupied with keeping their fiefdom together that there was no point in making a serious offer.
3. Did ESPN tell the SEC to lay off?
4. The SEC needed 2 new markets and is it possible they had no interest in acquiring more than 2 schools at this time?

We can safely presume that ESPN had no issue with the SEC chasing Oklahoma, but you'd think they would want to go ahead and sweep Texas up at the same time. It's an interesting little wrinkle in the discussion and I haven't thought about it before.

(07-02-2020 03:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

As OU’s President Boren said at that time, OU would have seriously considered the offer the SEC sent A&M and OU had either Texas or Oklahoma State had also been offered.

Virginia Tech was a recent addition to the ACC due strong state politics persuading University of Virginia to pressure the ACC into adding their instate rivals. It might have been too soon for VPI leaders to ask the same folks in Richmond to let them jump ships again.

It's interesting when you think about it.

Apparently Texas did not receive an invitation?

I'm sure there have been back-channel discussions, but you'd think the SEC would have made that an option so that makes me wonder.

1. Would Texas A&M have backed out had Texas been in serious talks?
2. Was Texas so preoccupied with keeping their fiefdom together that there was no point in making a serious offer.
3. Did ESPN tell the SEC to lay off?
4. The SEC needed 2 new markets and is it possible they had no interest in acquiring more than 2 schools at this time?

We can safely presume that ESPN had no issue with the SEC chasing Oklahoma, but you'd think they would want to go ahead and sweep Texas up at the same time. It's an interesting little wrinkle in the discussion and I haven't thought about it before.

At the time Texas and Oklahoma were at odds. Boren wanted OSU to move with them and the SEC was under the contract mandate for 2 schools from 2 new markets, so no duplicates. This is yet another reason Texas wasn't included. A&M wanted in and the discussions were confidential until they committed. Oklahoma wanted confidential conversations as well and Boren wanted numbers but didn't want to commit so OSU was his excuse. He knew we weren't taking more than 2 and that A&M was in.

People frequently forget the situations when they look back what is now 9-10 years since the talks and 8 years since the joining.

Isn't it about time the "Missouri doesn't belong in the SEC" talk be put to rest? Missouri was invited, Missouri accepted, and they have been members since.

That one Twitter poster, identifying himself as a Gamecock in the Pat Smith link, delivered crass comments. Calling Mizzou Mizzery is child-minded. During that period, Carolina had only one more SEC win than Mizzou, who won the SEC East twice

I want Carolina to win. Get better, make the necessary changes. Sour grapes does nothing.

(07-02-2020 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

As OU’s President Boren said at that time, OU would have seriously considered the offer the SEC sent A&M and OU had either Texas or Oklahoma State had also been offered.

Virginia Tech was a recent addition to the ACC due strong state politics persuading University of Virginia to pressure the ACC into adding their instate rivals. It might have been too soon for VPI leaders to ask the same folks in Richmond to let them jump ships again.

It's interesting when you think about it.

Apparently Texas did not receive an invitation?

I'm sure there have been back-channel discussions, but you'd think the SEC would have made that an option so that makes me wonder.

1. Would Texas A&M have backed out had Texas been in serious talks?
2. Was Texas so preoccupied with keeping their fiefdom together that there was no point in making a serious offer.
3. Did ESPN tell the SEC to lay off?
4. The SEC needed 2 new markets and is it possible they had no interest in acquiring more than 2 schools at this time?

We can safely presume that ESPN had no issue with the SEC chasing Oklahoma, but you'd think they would want to go ahead and sweep Texas up at the same time. It's an interesting little wrinkle in the discussion and I haven't thought about it before.

At the time Texas and Oklahoma were at odds. Boren wanted OSU to move with them and the SEC was under the contract mandate for 2 schools from 2 new markets, so no duplicates. This is yet another reason Texas wasn't included. A&M wanted in and the discussions were confidential until they committed. Oklahoma wanted confidential conversations as well and Boren wanted numbers but didn't want to commit so OSU was his excuse. He knew we weren't taking more than 2 and that A&M was in.

People frequently forget the situations when they look back what is now 9-10 years since the talks and 8 years since the joining.

Those 3-5 years when the Big East broke into two conferences, the ACC added two from the Big East, Big Ten grabs Nebraska, the PAC 12 was trying to form the mega conference with Big 12 heavyweights, Big Ten grabs Maryland and Rutgers, Texas A&M leaves the Big 12, Big 12 backfills to fulfill TV contract of minimum 10 teams with hottest available football programs available (TVU and WVU), Missouri finally legally able to switch to SEC after lawsuit red tape removed. And somewhere in there ACC commish Jack “ninja” Swafford gets the ACC to ward off Big Ten and SEC from massive poaching by getting GOR signed and Notre Dame added as a partial.

The gears in my mind still haven't shifted yet. I still at first think of A&M and Mizzou playing UT and Kansas more than 'bama and Florida.

Sorry. Old habits are hard to break.

(07-02-2020 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 03:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Texas A&M is right about where the SEC before expansion would probably expect them to be. 34-30 is about 4.25-3.75 a year, i.e, 4-4 most years, at 7-5 or 8-4, with 9-3 or some 6-6 thrown in.

Missouri is a little odd because they won their division early and have since slid backward. I still wonder if a Big 10 invite came along if they would take it. Since the 2012 expansion I have moved to Missouri and would still say they are better cultural fit with that league. Wonder if we shouldn't have gotten VT when we took Missouri; I think it would have helped VT as the east was down then, and with Clemson's rise, it might have given Beamer-ball a few extra years.

[Note: playing that scenario out is tough. The ACC could have just replaced VT with Cincy/UConn at the time, or the combo of VT leaving and Maryland leaving later might have created a more drastic shift. If it did, perhaps Maryland doesn't even get a Big 10 invite, as the Big 10 goes after UVA/UNC/Duke/Syracuse/GT? Maybe they go west completely and do grab Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri. And if that happens, the Big 12 is down 5 schools: Nebraska, Kansas, MO, Colorado, and Texas A&M, not just four. Would it still have been TCU/WVU and one other, say Cincy or Houston? Or would the fifth school have been the straw that broke the camels back and sent Texas/Tech/OK/St. to the PAC? And if that is the case, then would the OBE still exist in some form? Maybe the OBE raids the ACC instead of the other way around?]

However, if the question overall is: Was the 2012 expansion a success for the SEC, I would still say the answer is yes, absolutely.

However, I would only give the SEC a B+. We don't really know what could have happened, but I think they could have gotten a better school than Missouri, like VT, or perhaps even made a much stronger push for OK back then.

As OU’s President Boren said at that time, OU would have seriously considered the offer the SEC sent A&M and OU had either Texas or Oklahoma State had also been offered.

Virginia Tech was a recent addition to the ACC due strong state politics persuading University of Virginia to pressure the ACC into adding their instate rivals. It might have been too soon for VPI leaders to ask the same folks in Richmond to let them jump ships again.

It's interesting when you think about it.

Apparently Texas did not receive an invitation?

I'm sure there have been back-channel discussions, but you'd think the SEC would have made that an option so that makes me wonder.

1. Would Texas A&M have backed out had Texas been in serious talks?
2. Was Texas so preoccupied with keeping their fiefdom together that there was no point in making a serious offer.
3. Did ESPN tell the SEC to lay off?
4. The SEC needed 2 new markets and is it possible they had no interest in acquiring more than 2 schools at this time?

We can safely presume that ESPN had no issue with the SEC chasing Oklahoma, but you'd think they would want to go ahead and sweep Texas up at the same time. It's an interesting little wrinkle in the discussion and I haven't thought about it before.

At the time Texas and Oklahoma were at odds. Boren wanted OSU to move with them and the SEC was under the contract mandate for 2 schools from 2 new markets, so no duplicates. This is yet another reason Texas wasn't included. A&M wanted in and the discussions were confidential until they committed. Oklahoma wanted confidential conversations as well and Boren wanted numbers but didn't want to commit so OSU was his excuse. He knew we weren't taking more than 2 and that A&M was in.

People frequently forget the situations when they look back what is now 9-10 years since the talks and 8 years since the joining.

If it makes things simpler going forward then offering Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a package seems like a good move. Their combined viewership is pretty good. From there, we can see what shakes loose.

The ACC is still a weak link in a model that rewards viewership so I have to wonder what they could lose. You could still build a pretty strong league around Texas and the ACC football schools though...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia remain at the moment. Add to them Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, and Pittsburgh. Now you've got 14 that cover very a very similar region to that of the SEC.

Move Virginia Tech and NC State into the SEC. We finally rest at 18.

Move North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Notre Dame into the Big Ten. They rest at 18.