TIME TO FREAK OUT AGAIN ABOUT CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT! THE BIG 12 IS DEAD! MAYBE!

[AllThingsKC]

Comically, you ask why the the Big XII doesn't model itself after a successful conference, such as the SEC. In fact, the Big XII and the SEC are identical in terms of sharing revenue.

And yet, one conference has recently lost members and the other has not.

Fail.

You argue that MU left b/c BigXII is broken and that loser BigXII should follow the model of winner SEC. Then you learn that the BigXII and the SEC are the identical model.

Then you argue that MU left the BigXII.

No. I'm trying to ask: If the Big 12 and SEC had identical models, why has the Big 12 lost 4 members? If Texas is no different than UF/LSU/Bama, why is nobody talking about leaving the SEC?

[chaglang]

No. I'm trying to ask: If the Big 12 and SEC had identical models, why has the Big 12 lost 4 members? If Texas is no different than UF/LSU/Bama, why is nobody talking about leaving the SEC?

Prestige. Even if you have no shot at winning one, you want to be in the conference that has a hammer lock on national titles. The SEC has made itself into a shiny, desirable brand. SEC football conjures up images of hoardes of passionate fans getting snockered and enjoying themselves. The Big 12 has never gotten over the awkwardness of its creation, and the perception remains that it's a bunch of podunk schools with fans sitting out on the prairies, freezing their keesters off. The prairies, apparently, are also less prestigious than the ones the Big 10 play on.

And having only one marquee school (Texas football or Kansas basketball) seems to be a good way for people to not take a conference seriously. You can debate if that's true of the Big 12 or not, but we certainly don't go 3-4 deep with national title contenders.

[KC-wildcat]

No. I'm trying to ask: If the Big 12 and SEC had identical models, why has the Big 12 lost 4 members? If Texas is no different than UF/LSU/Bama, why is nobody talking about leaving the SEC?

I am telling you that the BigXII and the SEC currently have identical financial models. They didn't when NU and CU left. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me or calling this into question. it is fact. this information is publicly available on the interwebs. Both Conferences evenly distribute Tier I, Tier II, and bowl revenues. Both Conferences reserve Tier III revenues for each, individual member school. Again, this is fact. There's no "if" about it.

The only difference between UT and its SEC power couterparts is that UT is the most recent to negotiate a Tier III package. Whereas Florida's was $100mil several years ago, UT's was $300mil last year. And in a couple years from now, when UF is due to renogiate its Tier III package with the Sunshine Network, maybe they'll be looking at $300mil for 10 years.

Why hasn't this been an issue in the past? Because the amount of programming and the amount of available content was miniscule in comparisonthe to what it is today. With the rapid advance of the internet, then amount of programming, content, access has exploded. Imagine the amount of content that will be available 10 years from today.

So, I ask you, if in 5 years, Florida or LSU or Alabama is faced with a $300mil LHN network of their own, are you absolutely convinced that they will just happily sign away these rights to the SEC so as to share their revenue with Ole Miss or Vanderbilt? Or, do you think Florida might just say, you know, $30mil a year into our bank account seems awfully nice - maybe we'll just keep the Conference just as it is.

That's the question. I guess we'll see....

[AllThingsKC]

When Mike Slive was speaking to the KC Tiger Club, he said it is against the policies of the SEC for a school to create their own network, like Texas has with the LHN. Florida has a deal with the Sunshine Network, but that is not Florida's personal network. There's also no grant of rights in the SEC, so I assume it would be difficult to get all 14 schools to sign one.

Of course, there's no exit fee in the SEC, either. So if UF/Bama/LSU felt like they could make more money elsewhere, they could leave without penalty. That is a possibility in the future.

[KC-wildcat]

When Mike Slive was speaking to the KC Tiger Club, he said it is against the policies of the SEC for a school to create their own network, like Texas has with the LHN. Florida has a deal with the Sunshine Network, but that is not Florida's personal network. There's also no grant of rights in the SEC, so I assume it would be difficult to get all 14 schools to sign one.

Of course, there's no exit fee in the SEC, either. So if UF/Bama/LSU felt like they could make more money elsewhere, they could leave without penalty. That is a possibility in the future.

Semantics. The LHN shows non UT sports. Hell, we already discussed the Tech v. TX St. disupte.

Whether it's a LHN network or a local network guaranteeing to broadcast all Tier III content (ie Sunshine Network) the point remains... SEC big boys are in the same driver seat that UT and OU are.

[AllThingsKC]

That's right. But one conference is losing members and one isn't. So, what's the difference?

[phxcat]

No. I'm trying to ask: If the Big 12 and SEC had identical models, why has the Big 12 lost 4 members? If Texas is no different than UF/LSU/Bama, why is nobody talking about leaving the SEC?

You want to know why? Three reasons:

1. It's cultural. The SEC is the conference of the Confederacy. Nobody from the Confederacy is going to leave the conference of the Confederacy for a northern conference, and the only option that leaves is the ACC.

2. Geography- Whereas the Big XII is located in a region of the country that could be reached by all other conferences, the SEC is the conference of the Southeast- of the other three predatory conferences, the Pac wouldn't make that jump, the Big Ten only wanted one more school and they had several more to choose from in the North. The ACC is the only conference that would go after an SEC school, and they had their eyes set on the Big East.

3. desirability (and geography)- the only schools that anyone would want are in the deep south. Who would anyone want from the SEC besides Florida, Alabama, LSU and Georgia? Who would take them? And why would those schools leave anyway? They rule the roost! Again, the PAC isn't looking that far east and wouldn't take any of those schools besides Florida. The Big Ten also wouldn't take any of those schools besides Florida for academic reasons. Arkansas would be attractive to the Big XII because of geography and would have very easily moved had the Big XII seriously courted them and had they not so recently left the SWC. Before the new contracts came out, Kentucky or Vanderbilt probably would have jumped at an ACC invite. But the fact of the matter is that outside those four schools, nobody is attractive.

[MoMan]

That's right. But one conference is losing members and one isn't. So, what's the difference?

Just off the top of my head:

One is the Greece of ten years ago, all puffed up and intoxicated with its fleeting prosperity; the other is Switzerland.

One is the only major BCS conference that has contracted in the recent past, losing two of its three wealthiest, most populous states and replacing them with an isolated corner of Appalachia. The other is expanding and has captured a large chunk of the bleeding conference's market. There's a waiting list to get into the expanding conference.

One conference, unlike the other, currently contains schools that:
(a) tried furiously to go somewhere else but were deemed too toxic (UT, OU);
(b) were at risk of losing major conference affiliation two years ago (TTU, KSU, KU, BU, ISU, OSU);
(c) are serial conference-switchers (TCU) which no other major conference wanted;
(d) settled on their third conference choice after the first two they courted held their noses and said "no thanks" (WVU); and
(e) aren't attractive enough as a group to lure members of any of the other big five conferences.

One is famously harmonious: all schools are full members and may leave anytime they wish with no penalties. The other needs sanctions and threats to keep its membership (the sanction-happy conference has both full and "junior" members) from shrinking even further.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Arkansas would be attractive to the Big XII because of geography and would have very easily moved had the Big XII seriously courted them and had they not so recently left the Big XII.

Huh???????????????????????

Arkansas was in the Big XII? The old SW, yes, but not the Big XII.

[phxcat]

Ooops- typo. Fixed it.

[Highlander]

dp

[Highlander]

.

[Highlander]

dp

[chaglang]

The big XII was once the best conference in college athletics.

Um, when?

[Highlander]

.

[pash]

.

[AllThingsKC]

The big XII was once the best conference in college athletics.

I don't think actual results back up this statement, unless you're talking about prior to 1996, and even then I'm not sure.

Since 1996 (when the Big 12 was formed)...

BCS Titles: SEC 8, Big XII 2

NCAA Basketball Tourney Champions: SEC 5, Big XII 1

College World Series Champions: SEC 6, Big XII 2

...but hopefully Mizzou will be the first to go.

Why would Mizzou leave the SEC?
1. They're in a conference that isn't losing members.
2. There's no grant of rights.
3. There's no exit fee, if Mizzou ever did want to leave.
4. They're getting more primetime and nationally-televised games.
5. The new SEC TV deal is expected to be worth much more than what the Big 12 got.
6. Ticket sales are currently at an all-time high.
7. Donations to the school are currently at an all-time high.
8. They're playing the best athletic conference in the country (which is apparently important to you).
9. Thanks to #4, recruiting hasn't taken a hit yet (but it remains to be seen if it will stay that way).
10. Unlike The Big 12, B1G, and Pac-12, which treats their new members unfairly, Mizzou and A&M are already full members of the SEC.

Seems like Mizzou is in a pretty good place right now, to me at least. Not that I wouldn't change my mind in a few years from now. But for now, they seem to be sitting pretty.

[Highlander]

.

[phxcat]

The big XII was once the best conference in college athletics.

I don't think actual results back up this statement, unless you're talking about prior to 1996, and even then I'm not sure.

Since 1996 (when the Big 12 was formed)...

BCS Titles: SEC 8, Big XII 2

NCAA Basketball Tourney Champions: SEC 5, Big XII 1

College World Series Champions: SEC 6, Big XII 2

...but hopefully Mizzou will be the first to go.

Why would Mizzou leave the SEC?
1. They're in a conference that isn't losing members.
2. There's no grant of rights.
3. There's no exit fee, if Mizzou ever did want to leave.
4. They're getting more primetime and nationally-televised games.
5. The new SEC TV deal is expected to be worth much more than what the Big 12 got.
6. Ticket sales are currently at an all-time high.
7. Donations to the school are currently at an all-time high.
8. They're playing the best athletic conference in the country (which is apparently important to you).
9. Thanks to #4, recruiting hasn't taken a hit yet (but it remains to be seen if it will stay that way).
10. Unlike The Big 12, B1G, and Pac-12, which treats their new members unfairly, Mizzou and A&M are already full members of the SEC.

Seems like Mizzou is in a pretty good place right now, to me at least. Not that I wouldn't change my mind in a few years from now. But for now, they seem to be sitting pretty.

I am talking overall conference, not championships and mythical championships. The SEC did not deserve at least a couple of those BCS championships - a 2 loss LSU team, c'mon. In basketball, the SEC has two programs of any accomplishment; Kentucky and Florida. LSU came on for a bit but has quickly faded. Vandy and Tennessee have been OK at best at times.

I hate arguing this subjective stuff, but SEC homers at Mizzou act like they are now in the NFL and NBA. The SEC may be pre-eminent in football (for the moment) but it hasn't been that way for long and they are hopelessly overrated from top to bottom. Arkansas starting the season at #8 - let's talk about bias. That bias has contributed to a lot of SEC football championships; like last years Alabama-LSU mythical championship game that never should have happened. They have 2-3 good teams plus a few of decent teams. Just like most conferences.

I could care less about playing in the best conference. Why should Missouri leave - we are not a southern state. It's that simple. Conferences should be regional grouping of schools of like academic and cultural affinity. We are one of two states in the SEC (Kentucky being the other) that were not part of the confederacy. Kentucky is there for obvious reason, it is south of the Ohio and very coupled with Tennessee. Missouri has no such affiliation unless you are from the bootheel. We are a nothern midwest state.

Donations (why would any alum ever donate to an athletic cause when funding for academics are struggling - I'd never call that a plus, it's a horrible misplacement of priorities) and ticket sales are up because it's new and there was a perceived need and impassioned plea to increase stadium capacity. I bet ticket sales are not up for basketball. Recruiting - well, we'll see.

A move to the Big X may have made sense although I never saw any compelling reason for moving (I think it all came down to getting shunned by the BCS for KU in the one season either team were of national caliber). The Big X has the added benefit of being a stellar academic conference, something the SEC never has been.

As far as being in a good place, Missouri could not even beat Georgia at home this year. They struggled against ASU last night. Georgia isn't a bad team but they aren't a good team either. Last year's Georgia team was highly rated too and the best in the east division and their highly touted defense was totally destroyed by Kellen Moore and Boise State playing in Atlanta. Mizzou football is fun to watch - although it will be a long year with a questionable offensive line - but Mizzou doesn't have a great program. It was middle of the conference big XII, it will be middle of the conference SEC. I think that's the best you can expect; the SEC isn't going to do anything for progressing Mizzou's football program. It just won't, you are dreaming if you think that is the expected end result.

And this part in bold, in, as I noted previously, a fourteen team conference, makes #4 unlikely, especially with the new Big XII contract increasing primetime and national appearances divided among ten teams.

Conference realignment makes me sad. I hope that someday we can return to the days of the old Big 8.

All that being said, how much does KU want Colorado back in the conference?

[MoMan]

Why should Missouri leave - we are not a southern state...We are a nothern midwest state.

Unlike the Big 8, The Big XII isn't and has never been a midwestern conference.

You're right, Missouri is a midwestern state and would be most at home in a midwestern conference. But the population within the Big XII footprint is overwhelmingly Texan, and half the conference's schools are in Texas or Appalachia. The Big XII's headquarters have always been in Texas, a state whose flavor defines the Big XII. And Texas, as you must know, was a member of the Confederacy.

The Big X has the added benefit of being a stellar academic conference, something the SEC never has been.

It's unfortunate the B1G offered only junior membership. I think that conference would have provided a much better cultural fit for Mizzou.

However, while academics in the SEC certainly aren't as lofty as those in the B1G, SEC schools have a much higher average academic ranking than those in the Big XII.