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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Agree with all of this. I was excited about adding Texas and Oklahoma, but not if Texas was going to still want special deals. Glad the Pac-12 refused to give them any special concessions.

While I agree - there's no way I wanted to add any teams that wanted special concessions - there may be reasons to regret not inviting the Oklahoma schools, as outlined by Wilner:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/21/did-the-pac-12-risk-its-future-by-not-expanding/

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

While I agree - there's no way I wanted to add any teams that wanted special concessions - there may be reasons to regret not inviting the Oklahoma schools, as outlined by Wilner:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/21/did-the-pac-12-risk-its-future-by-not-expanding/

Not only that, but if you pull OU/OSU, it's pretty clear that UT may be out of options to the point where you would get the concessions that were held back in previous negotiations and still get UT.

[Ksyrup]

I'm telling you, I don't know what reality will dictate, but if the ACC's response isn't a mirror image of the Pac-12 response to Texas, then I hope FSU contacts the SEC before Swofford even gets to a vote on it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Dodd article on what we might see going forward........

Sports - CBSSports.com Sports News, Fantasy Scores, Sports Video

Rumor here in Missouri is that politicians, including the governor are pushing hard to get Mizzou to accept the SEC invite. The BOC emergency meeting tomorrow has not been cancelled and it appears that SEC option is still available.

[Logan]

Why has Missouri not accepted the SEC invite yet?

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Logan

Why has Missouri not accepted the SEC invite yet?

Because I think there has to be one to accept...

[tarcone]

Mizzou to the SEC has to be the worst football decision ever. They will be a bottom feeder in that league. The only thing they can hope for is not losing their inroads to Texas to even have a hint of competing. No way Florida kids will pick Mizzou.

As for basketball, it would be a genius move. Mizzou could dominate that league in that sport.

[MJ4H]

not sure if srs

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Because I think there has to be one to accept...

How can that be? Baghdad Bob, I mean MBBF assured us that Missouri had offers from the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-10, ACC, Big East, and the NFC Central?

[I. J. Reilly]

Heh, tell us what you really think coach Pinkel. I especially like the part where he stops to correct himself to use the past tense when referring to the Big-12.

Pinkel levels another blast at Big 12 | Campus Corner

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

How can that be? Baghdad Bob, I mean MBBF assured us that Missouri had offers from the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-10, ACC, Big East, and the NFC Central?

AFC Central DUH!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting comments from Mike Kelly tonight on Radio (play by play man for Mizzou). Said that Brady Deaton may be stripped of his decision-making ability regarding conference affiliation in tomorrow's BOC meeting. That would sync with rumors that majority of MU board of curators favor acceptance of a SEC invitation. Students at Mizzou are also organizing a pro-SEC rally for tomorrow morning around the building where the curators will be meeting.

[RedKingGold]

What would happen if MBBF was stripped of his decision-marking ability?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

OSU board votes tonight to give president full decision-making on any conference realignment discussions.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

OSU board votes tonight to give president full decision-making on any conference realignment discussions.

Too bad for him he has to call the oklahoma president 1st

[digamma]

Missouri has beaten Texas exactly once since 1917. Wanna get away?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by digamma

Missouri has beaten Texas exactly once since 1917. Wanna get away?

That can't possibly be correct

[digamma]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

That can't possibly be correct

To be fair, they didn't play them all that often until the Big 12 formed, but it is true.

Missouri Game by Game against Opponents

[MrBug708]

Interesting.

Also, why the exhibition games in Mexico City?

[Swaggs]

Some smoke going around that WVU received an offer to join the Big 12 today. If true, I imagine we try to show a little leg to the SEC one last time to see if they bite and if not, it is off to a new region. If we go, I hope Louisville comes, too.

[Swaggs]

Dola...

and if that doesn't work out, we always have this exciting option: Big East will look to add Navy, Air Force for football only; Temple, Villanova also options | NJ.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

Missouri has beaten Texas exactly once since 1917. Wanna get away?

Absolutely. We have the opportunity to move to a conference where we have a proven track record......

Alabama 2-1
Arkansas 3-2
Auburn 1-0
Florida 1-0
Georgia 0-1
Kentucky 1-2
LSU 1-0
Mississippi 5-1
Mississippi St. 2-0
South Carolina 2-0
Vanderbilt 2-1-1

All-time records
Mizzou vs. SEC opponents - 20-8-1
Mizzou vs. SEC opponents (bowl games) - 8-1

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Absolutely. We have the opportunity to move to a conference where we have a proven track record......

Alabama 2-1
Arkansas 3-2
Auburn 1-0
Florida 1-0
Georgia 0-1
Kentucky 1-2
LSU 1-0
Mississippi 5-1
Mississippi St. 2-0
South Carolina 2-0
Vanderbilt 2-1-1

All-time records
Mizzou vs. SEC opponents - 20-8-1
Mizzou vs. SEC opponents (bowl games) - 8-1

I've gotta give credit where credit is due - this is gold.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Some smoke going around that WVU received an offer to join the Big 12 today. If true, I imagine we try to show a little leg to the SEC one last time to see if they bite and if not, it is off to a new region. If we go, I hope Louisville comes, too.

[RainMaker]

The SEC is so overated. They have the top teams in the country, but outside of their top 3-4, the conference is extremely mediocre and even below average in some instances.

[MJ4H]

no u

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The SEC is so overated. They have the top teams in the country, but outside of their top 3-4, the conference is extremely mediocre and even below average in some instances.

I don't think the middle and bottom teams in the other main conferences are all that better.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I don't think the middle and bottom teams in the other main conferences are all that better.

Yeah, but it's the eternal thing where even Pac-10 and Big XII teams would get this nonsense about how the SEC was a war week in and week out so even their middle teams are worse because, you know, beating up on South Carolina or Mississippi or Mississippi State or Arkansas is so hard to say nothing of Vandy or Kentucky. Yes, good teams some years just like Georgia or Tennessee have had elite teams but not unlike, say, Oklahoma State or Texas Tech or Washington or Arizona- teams that have been regional powers for a couple of seasons.

SI

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yes, good teams some years just like Georgia or Tennessee have had elite teams but not unlike, say, Oklahoma State or Texas Tech or Washington or Arizona- teams that have been regional powers for a couple of seasons.

SI

Georgia and Tennessee have the potential to win a national title in any decade. You can't say that for those other teams. You could say that Auburn is a step below those two, and yet they just won a national title. When is the next time you see it feasible that OkSt, TT, Wash, or Arizona win a title?

It isn't the current top of the SEC that makes the conference strong, it is the top of the middle teams that are capable of winning national titles or just being damn good 10 win teams any year that make the conference so tough.

[sterlingice]

Well, Washington has two titles in the early 90s right after Colorado's. Oklahoma State is ranked in the Top 10 right now while Texas Tech went 11-1 a couple of years ago. Arizona... well, it's been a while since the Desert Swarm defense and that wasn't quite national title contender. But I was just giving examples. K-State was one win away from playing for a national title a couple of times in the last 90s while, hell, Kansas and Mizzou were in that boat in 2007. Sorry, I don't know my Pac-10 as well, but I'm sure someone could give some info on Washington State's years with Ryan Leaf or Arizona State's successes, etc.

And, again, we're not talking about perennial powers (Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, etc)

SI

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, Washington has two titles in the early 90s right after Colorado's. Oklahoma State is ranked in the Top 10 right now while Texas Tech went 11-1 a couple of years ago. Arizona... well, it's been a while since the Desert Swarm defense and that wasn't quite national title contender. But I was just giving examples. K-State was one win away from playing for a national title a couple of times in the last 90s while, hell, Kansas and Mizzou were in that boat in 2007. Sorry, I don't know my Pac-10 as well, but I'm sure someone could give some info on Washington State's years with Ryan Leaf or Arizona State's successes, etc.

And, again, we're not talking about perennial powers (Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, etc)

SI

That's why I said "in any decade." Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn can have a team every decade that either wins a national title or seriously competes for one. Auburn has three undefeated seasons in the last 20 years, each separated by at least a few years and under totally different regimes. And, again, I would consider Auburn as a SEC program to be upper middle.

For now, and for the foreseeable future, the SEC has those top middle teams that can compete for national titles even if they aren't in some sort of golden age of the program. Hell a coach that was horrid in the Big 12 came in and won a title right away with one of those teams! That is something that less than elite teams in the other conferences can't say or do. (And why the difference? Even when SEC teams aren't elite, they often stock very good to elite athletes. See: recruiting rankings.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dan Beebe working to leave job as Big 12 Conference commissioner, report says - ESPN

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

That's why I said "in any decade." Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn can have a team every decade that either wins a national title or seriously competes for one. Auburn has three undefeated seasons in the last 20 years, each separated by at least a few years and under totally different regimes. And, again, I would consider Auburn as a SEC program to be upper middle.

For now, and for the foreseeable future, the SEC has those top middle teams that can compete for national titles even if they aren't in some sort of golden age of the program. Hell a coach that was horrid in the Big 12 came in and won a title right away with one of those teams! That is something that less than elite teams in the other conferences can't say or do. (And why the difference? Even when SEC teams aren't elite, they often stock very good to elite athletes. See: recruiting rankings.)

You're downplaying Washington a bit, but then again, they are historically the 2nd best program in the Pac-12 so I suppose that fits your point about "middle tier" teams from the respective conferences.

[MrBug708]

Historically third with a great run in the 90s

I know this will likely start WW3 between us

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Historically third with a great run in the 90s

I know this will likely start WW3 between us

No war, the facts are clear:

Winning percentage:
USC: 769-311-54 = .702
UW: 665-411-50 = .613
UCLA: 542-379-37 = .585

Rose Bowls:
USC: 33
UW: 14
UCLA: 12

Which Pac-10 teams have been in at least 1 Rose Bowl each decade since the 1920's? USC & UW.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

No war, the facts are clear:

Winning percentage:
USC: 769-311-54 = .702
UW: 665-411-50 = .613
UCLA: 542-379-37 = .585

Rose Bowls:
USC: 33
UW: 14
UCLA: 12

Which Pac-10 teams have been in at least 1 Rose Bowl each decade since the 1920's? USC & UW.

Washington has played over 200 more games than UCLA so take this into consideration

Conference Titles:
UCLA - 17
Washington - 14

Award Winners
Washington - 16
UCLA - 8

Consensus All-Americans
UCLA - 39
Washington 20

Heisman Winners
UCLA - 1
Washington - 0

College football HOF
Washington - 14
UCLA - 13

All Important head-to head record
UCLA - 38 wins
Washington - 30 wins

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Washington has played over 200 more games than UCLA so take this into consideration

Conference Titles:
UCLA - 17
Washington - 14

Award Winners
Washington - 16
UCLA - 8

Consensus All-Americans
UCLA - 39
Washington 20

Heisman Winners
UCLA - 1
Washington - 0

College football HOF
Washington - 14
UCLA - 13

All Important head-to head record
UCLA - 38 wins
Washington - 30 wins

I'll give you head-to-head. I'll stand by the rest of it though. That the UW still has the edge it does over UCLA after going through - by far - the worst 5 years stretch in their history just emphasizes the historical advantage the Huskies have over the Bruins.

[MrBug708]

I can go even further, take out the worse decade of UCLA's era, (the last 10) and largely the 90's, just goes to show how strong UCLA was. UW's head start is a lot to take into consideration but it's the breaks, I can't change when a program started. I

I'd say overall winning record and award winners are the only two clear advantages UW has and award winners isn't really that much of a category. UCLA owns conference titles (despite 200 less games), head to head, and the All-Americans.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

That's why I said "in any decade." Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn can have a team every decade that either wins a national title or seriously competes for one. Auburn has three undefeated seasons in the last 20 years, each separated by at least a few years and under totally different regimes. And, again, I would consider Auburn as a SEC program to be upper middle.

For now, and for the foreseeable future, the SEC has those top middle teams that can compete for national titles even if they aren't in some sort of golden age of the program. Hell a coach that was horrid in the Big 12 came in and won a title right away with one of those teams! That is something that less than elite teams in the other conferences can't say or do. (And why the difference? Even when SEC teams aren't elite, they often stock very good to elite athletes. See: recruiting rankings.)

The SEC is solid, by far the best league in college football, but even your SEC brethren can answer the bolded question. Bag of cash possibly?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And while the rest of the conference is expected to pledge loyalty, UT lines up exit strategies.

http://northwestern.rivals.com/showm...&mid=163241898

Big Ten and Texas Created a "Letter of Intent"

Tonight, the University of Texas president Bill Powers co-authored a letter of intent with the Big Ten conference.

The key terms include:

- the University of Texas will in good faith conduct discussions with the Big Ten conference and no other conference related to its post-2012 conference affiliation
- the Big Ten will not invite any other institution to join the conference without the prior approval of Texas
- before joining the Big Ten, Texas will have assurances that it can schedule four non-Big Ten conference football games per season
- the requirement that any final arrangement be designed to increased revenues among all Big Ten conference schools, with no discrepancies in distributions unrelated to television network distributions among conference institutions
- Texas will become a full CIC member
- Texas and the Big Ten will jointly approve any third party media arrangements related to Texas athletics moving forward
- the goal that Texas participates as a full member of the conference beginning in the fall of 2014

Texas' intentions with regard to the Big Ten will remain without official announcements until a specific group of universities, including the current Texas' Big XII schools, solidify their own conference affiliation status. Neither the Big Ten nor Texas wishes to be seen as the primary driving force in conference realignment.

The decision of Syracuse and Pittsburg to join the ACC came unexpectedly to the Big Ten. Certain leaders of the conference remained uncertain that a similar unexpected action could take place on the heels of the meeting of the Texas Board of Regents, particularly given the lack of uniform communications between Texas stakeholders and the conference. These individuals no longer have such uncertainties.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And while the rest of the conference is expected to pledge loyalty, UT lines up exit strategies.

WildcatReport.com - Message Boards

Sounds made up to make Texas look bad. (not by you but the original poster)

[Logan]

I don't believe any of that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sounds made up to make Texas look bad. (not by you but the original poster)

The poster has been pretty good with his Big Ten information in the past. Reportedly knows a lawyer that is involved in all Big Ten contract negotiations.

[molson]

You'd think in such a busy, important time those "insiders" would be more worried about the fate of their schools and less worried about anonymously bragging about all the stuff they know.

[Logan]

The real lawyers can chime in on this...but I do not believe it would be normal for a letter of intent to cover something like "we will not talk to anyone else about XX".

[henry296]

And he can't even spell Pittsburgh, right.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by henry296

And he can't even spell Pittsburgh, right.

Who can? It's as difficult as Misissipi.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Logan

I don't believe any of that.

This. Texas has been pretty consistent with saying "1st and 2nd tier rights can be shared equally, but you can't have me Lucky Charms, er, Longhorn Network money." Not to mention veto rights on who to invite.

IIRC, that guy admitted that Delany ripped him a new one last year for leaking something. If that's true, anything he says is no more reliable than Chip Brown being a mouthpiece for Texas. "Leak this misinformation or you're fired this time." His posts keep getting deleted this time around and he claims Rivals is doing it instead of him. Note the first guy saying he has a screenshot this time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The poster has been pretty good with his Big Ten information in the past. Reportedly knows a lawyer that is involved in all Big Ten contract negotiations.

This entire thread is filled with bad rumors that are put out by people who "have always been right aboust stuff".

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Columbia (MO) Tribune newspaper reporting that Mizzou's Board of Curators has called a meeting for Thursday morning at the University. Local press has been invited to the meeting.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This entire thread is filled with bad rumors that are put out by people who "have always been right aboust stuff".

18 months of garbage and nobody knows about one of the few things that actually happened (cuse and pitt)