I thought of that, too, but culturally Pitt is a pretty poor fit. They don't have their own stadium, poor attendance, poor traveling for bowls, etc. I just don't see them fitting in with SEC schools. Louisville really would make more sense unless Kentucky is dead set against it and has the clout to stop it. They just spent a ton of money to expand Papa John's stadium to around 60,000 (the exact final capacity hasn't been announced).

Most of those other teams have been transparent and most of the comments reflect that. Missouri seems to be playing misdirection.

And I know what you were trying to do :)

They are kind of academic snobs, too. :)

And publicly i believe Mizzou has consistently said its a proud member of the Big 12 and has discussed options available to them in private...and no offense, but from what we have heared from the Ohio State emails, texas was talking to the Big 10 from the get go, so while i understand the company line, Texas would very much like to move and has actively campaigned this entire time to reach that end. In all honesty, even in NU and Mizzou stayed, i think Texas would leave...if I were them I would, it makes too much sense financially for them to really want to stay

Are you counting yellow seats as fans? :)

Pitt would probably be happier in the ACC (if not the Big Ten, where they are really a perfect fit aside from being in a redundant market) with their academic pedigree. I think they'd obviously have to accept a bid to the SEC, though. And, I think the WVU/Pitt tandem would bring some football and basketball value, a new market, and not really tip the balance of power by adding a new power (which Texas, Oklahoma, or possibly FSU or Miami would do).

I can guarantee you that the SEC hasn't seen a mustache the likes of Dave's before! :)

This.

Even if things have changed and Mizzou gets moved to a different stage of the expansion, it's still likely that Mizzou ends up in the Big 10. I think you'll find that Mizzou is very reserved in their reaction for this very reason if this 'doomsday' scenario comes to pass.

That's for damn sure. We ain't got time for that shit

So where does this leave the SEC? Will the new contracts for the Big-10 and PAC-10 mean more money for those teams then what the SEC does?

Mizzou has handled this more professionally than any other school involved. They're the only administration out of the major players in the Big 12 that has kept their dirty laundry behind close doors.

Possibly, but the SEC has already said they will not sit around and let that kind of thing happen.

Except that I believe you're underestimating the importance of the "Southeastern" portion of the conference name where the SEC is concerned.
The definitions may been stretched a little with the addition of Arkansas is truly more SW, and would be stretched even further with WVU but could be a cultural fit in many ways. Pitt on the other hand ... well, I have a tough time believing the member schools or their fans would have any desire to see a school they completely identify as "Northern" being added.

I wouldnt expect anything less then a comment like this. Even though Missouri has been trying to whore itself out to the Big-10 for 2 years

Expansion?

yes

I think we should go after Montana and Hawaii personally (I MEAN IF WE ARE GOING TO GO AFTER PITT WE MIGHT AS WELL)

:confused::confused:

Link?

WVU is south of the Mason Dixon line. By about 6 miles, but it is south of it.

2007-08 Ranking, Revenue, FBS schools, by targeted conference:

Big XII

1. Texas
10. Oklahoma State
11. Kansas
17. Oklahoma
20. Nebraska
21. Texas A&M
43. Colorado
46. Missouri
47. Kansas State
56. Baylor
58. Texas Tech
63. Iowa State

ACC

23. Duke
26. Virginia
31. North Carolina
32. Boston College
34. Clemson (half of Texas' revenue)
37. Virginia Tech
41. Maryland
49. Georgia Tech
51. Miami
53. Florida State
55. North Carolina State
60. Wake Forest

Big East

39. Connecticut
40. West Virginia
44. Louisville
45. Rutgers
54. Syracuse
61. Pittsburgh
66. South Florida
67. Cincinnati

Other Notables

14. Notre Dame
57. Texas Christian (top non-BCS school)
64. Brigham Young (2nd)
75. Mississippi State (lowest BCS school, one-fourth of Texas' revenue)
118. Louisiana-Monroe (lowest FBS, Army and Navy do not report revenue)

If I'm the SEC, I'm looking westward if I want to expand to 16 - and wouldn't want a "Tech problem" any more than Ohio State does.

Missouri may bring some inroads into the St. Louis market, and there's a natural rivalry with Illinois. But the Big Ten might want to give a harder look to Kansas if it already has Nebraska. Kansas is also AAU.

The argument can also be made that Big East schools, having not had the chance to participate in a major conference (I see the Big East as in the limbo area between major and mid-major) could see a huge boost from a move to the Big Ten, while Big XII schools have less to grow.

Yep, the Big 12 has been so horrible financially for Texas, they are consistently #1 or #2 for athletic department revenue. I don't think it is so much that Texas wants to move, it is other conferences want Texas to move to them.

I think the true answer lies somewhere in between.

Other conferences want Texas, and Texas is willing to go if it's a better situation for them, but I don't think the Longhorns are sittin' there with bags packed waiting to bolt, either. They've got a pretty sweet deal in the Big XII right now, so there's no reason for them to go anywhere unless it improves their situation.

But just the publicity associated with being the top target for all these conferences has to be beneficial to them, too - particularly from a recruiting perspective.

I actually heard yesterday that the SEC had made preliminary contact with Mizzou. I thought it was ridiculous given what was being said. Might not have been as ridiculous as I first thought.

I'd also point out the Pac Ten could play this smarter. They're on the verge of being saddled with Texas Tech and Baylor. They probably want neither. If Nebraska goes, they have enough leverage to offer Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Colorado, leaving room for Utah and New Mexico if that doesn't force Texas and Texas A&M's hands.

Missouri Tigers Athletics :: Mizzou College Sports :: TigerBoard.com :: Missouri to the Big Ten in 3-5 years.

Oh the Big 12 has been great for Texas, but the TV deal dollars being tossed around for a PAC 16 that would cover 40% of the top media markets makes what Texas is pulling in now look laughable. Texas is many things, and a smart school is one of them.

Your quoting Tigerboard? That site is a collection of random joes posting anything and everything. Quote the Columbia Tribune or another esteemed source instead of an internet forum...

I was using a source that MBBF would be comfortable with.

LOL, well played buddy :D

An assist for you. Good find on Bug's behalf.

Yea I wonder if the SEC would/should consider a possibly homless Missouri. (Especially If they get three top choices such as FSU, GT, and Clem and need a fourth for 16.) I don't think they would be the worst fit in the world. And even if their fit isn't the best, they bring more to the conference than a lot of ACC teams.

Ok, use the link from the board

collegeBLITZ.com | The Homepage of College Football

Actually, there was an article within the post.

The proposed Pac 10 and Big 12 south deal would be a great fit for everyone involved. That is the conference that I would love to see Kansas tied to though I don't know how likely that is to happen with all of the politics involved. That would be an incredible conference with lots of potential growth.

Miami, FSU, Clemson, and GT and call it a day

Potential of that happening is somewhere between zero and zilch.

But under that scenario, you then run into the 'Kansas State' problem instead of the 'Tech' problem.

I don't think the SEC goes after Miami, myself. FSU, yes.

Same. Think going after GT, FSU, and Clemson are slam dunks. But Miami has a lot of negatives in how they fit in the SEC culture (aside from location.) Private school that doesn't make a lot of money, doesn't draw well for any sport, and who's overall sports portfolio isn't very strong... I certainly think they would make an OK backup plan, but talking about Missouri I was wondering outloud if they wouldn't be a better overall catch than Miami.

I like those chances better than Missouri's. :)

Why would the SEC want you?

A member of the Kansas Board of Regents just this week announced they would allow Kansas and KSU to split up if that was in the best interest of one of the schools. They did suggest that keeping the Big 12 together was their number one priority though.

I might be crazy, but I'm actually not sure that Miami would go to the SEC. They fancy themselves to be one of the academic elites of the South and I suspect that their administration is probably happy in the ACC with Wake Forest, Duke, UVA, UNC, Maryland and Boston College. Maybe if the ACC looks like it is going to fall apart, but I imagine that the Carolina and Virginia schools would have enough combined cohesion for the ACC to survive losing some of the other teams.

Having Texas and Oklahoma plus four teams from East India would outweigh having six teams not named Texas.

That's not what he said. He said that it wasn't a given that they would have to remain together (i.e. no decision had been made). With that said, there are 9 regents on that board, none of whom want to be the people who sent one of the state institutions to a lower level conference while the other one does well.

I will differ from MBBF and say that Missouri has been just as professional as any other school in the process. But saying what you did about Missouri makes me think you haven't been paying attention.

I'm handsome.

Technically I thought what the Kansas regent said was the there was nothing legal tying KU and K-State together in a conference but that's what everyone wants. It was more in response to the notion that the State of Kansas legally required KU and KSU to be a package.

The Kansas people seem to understand the Kansas State problem would lead to two MWC schools rather than one major and one mid-major.

Texas has enormous leverage. Texas A&M is no slouch. But if the Big XII is failing, it's because there are four schools that probably don't belong in a revised BCS based on athletics alone. The Big Ten's strength is that is has only one - and that one is perhaps its strongest academic institution.

We have to look at what form a splinter major division would take. Could it be 3 16-team conferences, and two 8-team conferences combining with a championship game for the fourth spot? Two 10-team conferences? A 14 and an 8?

Imagine what it would do for basketball to replace the NCAA tournament with this type of structure? Give the conference tournament winners a bye into the Sweet 16?

The goal here is for elite conferences to maximize revenue. The end-game has to be the removal of the NCAA - at least for major sports.

The Pac-10 doesn't want Kansas or New Mexico for that matter.
New Mexico adds nothing to them and forces them to split the revenu pie one more way and getting nothing in return.
Kansas would add a top noch basketball program, but little else and as it is the current Thursday/Saturday pairs scheudling of basketball will get even harder with more(longer) travel for ASU/uofa.
One of the bigger reasons they want Colorado is the short travel, the Denver market and the fact that CU has alumni in CA/AZ that will help with ticket sales ($). They will settle with Baylor but only if they are guaranteed Texas and Oklahoma.

Here was the summarized quote: Sherrer said the regents could support KU and K-State taking different paths if that was in the best interest of each school.

Here's the link.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/23824319/detail.html