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

[lock+load]

By the way, other great non-con rivalries include:
Florida/Florida State
Georgia/Georgia Tech
South Carolina/Clemson
Kentucky/Louisville

These are all in-state rivalries. Totally different scenario than KU/MU.

[beautyfromashes]

I'm beginning to feel that Kansas City is getting a bad deal being in Missouri. I know that cities have annexed other cities. Has it ever happened where a state annexed part of another state?

[AllThingsKC]

Yes, all those schools share a common area. Kansas City is a "common area."

There many great out-of-state examples too. They include Norte Dame and any military school.

I'm beginning to feel that Kansas City is getting a bad deal being in Missouri. I know that cities have annexed other cities. Has it ever happened where a state annexed part of another state?

Your posts are always full of reason and logic. And, to answer your question: Yes, states have annexed parts of other states before.

[KCMax]

And, to answer your question: Yes, states have annexed parts of other states before.

Such as? I'm pretty sure the Constitution expressly forbids it unless certain circumstances are met.

I'm beginning to think people forget the purpose of college is education. College athletics generate revenue to fund programs that serve a 'greater' purpose in life than sports. Why wouldn’t KS continue to play MU? If that game will generate more money for your institution than scheduling a non con Washburn?

The attitudes that have been displayed by people that are supposed to be educated has been mind-boggling to me, Its nothing short of petty and childish.

Why would it make more money than a non-con game against Washburn? Either way, it sells out.

As a KU fan, I don't want to see them play Mizzou anymore. The rivalry was waning anyway. K-State may make for an emerging rival in basketball, and with the inclusion of KU in the Champions Classic, I'd like to see them begin national rivalries with other blue blood programs like Kentucky or Michigan State.

Bye Mizzou. Have fun in your new conference. Just don't expect any of us to give a rip about you anymore.

[AllThingsKC]

Why would it make more money than a non-con game against Washburn? Either way, it sells out.

My guess would be the national interest, which the TV media would pick up. Also, I'm not sure that KU fans would be as willing to see Washburn play than they would Missouri. But, I could be wrong.

Such as? I'm pretty sure the Constitution expressly forbids it unless certain circumstances are met.

I love the show, "How The States Got Their Shapes." Throughout our history, the shapes have many states have changed, even multiple times in some cases. For example: West Virginia was once part of Virginia.

[kcjak]

I'm beginning to feel that Kansas City is getting a bad deal being in Missouri. I know that cities have annexed other cities. Has it ever happened where a state annexed part of another state?

I'm pretty sure the state of Missouri wouldn't be too happy about losing it's largest city and additional benefits it brings (tax revenue, congressional representation, etc.).

[KCMax]

Why would it make more money than a non-con game against Washburn? Either way, it sells out.

My guess would be the national interest, which the TV media would pick up. Also, I'm not sure that KU fans would be as willing to see Washburn play than they would Missouri. But, I could be wrong.

Such as? I'm pretty sure the Constitution expressly forbids it unless certain circumstances are met.

I love the show, "How The States Got Their Shapes." Throughout our history, the shapes have many states have changed, even multiple times in some cases. For example: West Virginia was once part of Virginia.

Right, new states have been carved out of old states, but to my knowledge I don't think an existing state has annexed part of another existing state. I think we had this discussion once before in another thread.

[AllThingsKC]

Right, new states have been carved out of old states, but to my knowledge I don't think an existing state has annexed part of another existing state. I think we had this discussion once before in another thread.

Hmm.....seems like that was happened too. Some-what recently, wasn't there a dispute between New York and New Jersey over Ellis Island? Seems like that involved annexation?! I think there have been similar stores with Texas. But I'm not sure.

[MidtownCat]

Talked to a big Tennessee fan this weekend who was pretty excited about aTm joining the SEC. Asked what he thought about Mizzou joining. The Tennessee fan was like, "what? Mizzou is joining?"

Backs up what Dodd was saying a few weeks ago about Mizzou not registering at all with fans down at LSU.

At this point, I actually feel kinda sorry for MU fans. Leaving a conference due to their overestimation of themselves and some imagined slight by the University of Texas, only to go to a conference that only wants them for their TV sets since they'll never pose a challenge to the conference's athletic powers and are willing to play in a ridiculous geographic divisional construct. They're joining a conference whose fans, despite Mizzou's best efforts at attention-whoring over the last few weeks, often don't even realize that Mizzou is joining and don't care when they find out.

Mizzou will be on the outskirts of their new conference and will be an afterthought to the schools and fans in the conference and the media that covers them. Meanwhile, their importance in the KC market will be greatly diminished due to their abandonment of the traditional rivalries and the fact that they will be playing in a conference without ties to KC and will be playing few, if any, meaningful games in the conference. Playing Vandy for 5th place in the SEC East has zero draw, as opposed to playing KU for 5th place in the North, which at least had some regional/rivalry interest.

There's going to be a significant backlash in about 5 years by Mizzou fans pissed about decreased coverage and prominence of their institution. Being the SEC's whipping boy isn't going to be so much fun after the first round of watching their team get its ass kicked by Alabama and Florida and South Carolina and Tennessee. And if Mizzou thought they were slighted in the Big 12, they haven't seen anything like what they're about to see in the SEC.

[AllThingsKC]

And if you change "Missouri" to "West Virginia," your post still makes sense.

At this point, I actually feel kinda sorry for WVU fans. Leaving a conference due to their overestimation of themselves and some imagined slight by the University of Pittsburgh, only to go to a conference that only wants them for their TV sets since they'll never pose a challenge to the conference's athletic powers and are willing to play in a ridiculous geographic divisional construct. They're joining a conference whose fans, despite WVU's best efforts at attention-whoring over the last few weeks, often don't even realize that WVU is joining and don't care when they find out.

WVU will be on the outskirts of their new conference and will be an afterthought to the schools and fans in the conference and the media that covers them. Meanwhile, their importance in the KC market will be greatly diminished due to their abandonment of the traditional rivalries and the fact that they will be playing in a conference without ties to KC and will be playing few, if any, meaningful games in the conference. Playing Kansas for 5th place in the Big 12 North has zero draw, as opposed to playing Pitt for 5th place in the Big East, which at least had some regional/rivalry interest.

There's going to be a significant backlash in about 5 years by WVU fans pissed about decreased coverage and prominence of their institution. Being the Big 12's whipping boy isn't going to be so much fun after the first round of watching their team get its ass kicked by Texas and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and Iowa State. And if WVU thought they were slighted in the Big East, they haven't seen anything like what they're about to see in the Big 12.

[shaffe]

Hey MidtownCat, since you can see into the future with 100% certainty can you give me the winning lotto numbers?

[KCMax]

And if you change "Missouri" to "West Virginia," your post still makes sense.

At this point, I actually feel kinda sorry for WVU fans. Leaving a conference due to their overestimation of themselves and some imagined slight by the University of Pittsburgh, only to go to a conference that only wants them for their TV sets since they'll never pose a challenge to the conference's athletic powers and are willing to play in a ridiculous geographic divisional construct. They're joining a conference whose fans, despite WVU's best efforts at attention-whoring over the last few weeks, often don't even realize that WVU is joining and don't care when they find out.

WVU will be on the outskirts of their new conference and will be an afterthought to the schools and fans in the conference and the media that covers them. Meanwhile, their importance in the KC market will be greatly diminished due to their abandonment of the traditional rivalries and the fact that they will be playing in a conference without ties to KC and will be playing few, if any, meaningful games in the conference. Playing Kansas for 5th place in the Big 12 North has zero draw, as opposed to playing Pitt for 5th place in the Big East, which at least had some regional/rivalry interest.

There's going to be a significant backlash in about 5 years by WVU fans pissed about decreased coverage and prominence of their institution. Being the Big 12's whipping boy isn't going to be so much fun after the first round of watching their team get its ass kicked by Texas and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and Iowa State. And if WVU thought they were slighted in the Big East, they haven't seen anything like what they're about to see in the Big 12.

Mizzou = West Virginia.

Oh wait, West Virginia has been to a Final Four. And a BCS game.

[MidtownCat]

Hey MidtownCat, since you can see into the future with 100% certainty can you give me the winning lotto numbers?

Sure.

[AllThingsKC]

So, West Virginia will do well in the Big 12 because they've been to a Final Four and a BCS Game?

And, Missouri will get their butts kicked in the SEC because they haven't been to a Final Four or BCS Game?

So, why doesn't Kansas go to the SEC? They would be great because they've been to a BCS Game before!

[MidtownCat]

Great stuff from Ivan Maisel.

The conference sought the Aggies to open the door to the television market in Texas. The SEC sought Missouri because it had to bring in someone, right? The Tigers may deliver good-sized TV markets in St. Louis and Kansas City. But there's a reason that they call the trustees of the University of Missouri "curators." They are the people who work at museums, which is the only place you'll find a Tiger trophy in football for the foreseeable future.

And so the Great School Grab of 2011 began its final act Sunday. The Southeastern Conference welcomed the University of Missouri into the club, the Tigers wiped their paws on a century of tradition and rivalries in the Midwest, and any day now, we may witness the admittance of Boise State into the Big, um, East.

So where are we?

The Big 12, which slimmed two sizes this season, could cinch another belt loop for 2012. If Missouri leaves as planned and West Virginia's entrance is delayed, the members will play eight conference games instead of nine. Hey, Texas, you can fill that new nonconference opening with Texas A&M. Texas? Hello? Anyone home? That's the same response the Aggies get.

Texas and the rest of the Big 12 believe that West Virginia will fill Missouri's slots in the master schedule in 2012, just as TCU stepped in for Texas A&M. The Big East believes that West Virginia will live by its agreement and remain in the conference for two more seasons. The judicial system will decide what happens. Prediction -- the money spent on attorneys' fees would fund several non-revenue sports.

The Big East will have nothing in common with how it began 20 years ago, save for its name and Rutgers. In other words, the Big East will have name recognition and little else that looks familiar, while Rutgers, which played in the first-ever college football game on this date in 1869, will continue its 142-year search for a football identity.

The ACC, which prides itself on collegiality in the finest Southern tradition, picked the Big East's pocket for Pittsburgh and Syracuse. To be fair, both schools leapt out of the pocket of their own accord. Syracuse, a founding member of the Big East, will continue to act as if it did nothing shameful.

The SEC added Mizzou as a 14th member because 13 is such an unwieldy number. (Yeah, it worked for the Founding Fathers, but they never had to create a football schedule with two divisions of different sizes). The excitement over Missouri isn't approaching the league's decision to add Texas A&M earlier this year.

The conference sought the Aggies to open the door to the television market in Texas. The SEC sought Missouri because it had to bring in someone, right? The Tigers may deliver good-sized TV markets in St. Louis and Kansas City. But there's a reason that they call the trustees of the University of Missouri "curators." They are the people who work at museums, which is the only place you'll find a Tiger trophy in football for the foreseeable future.

Missouri, in its 11th season under coach Gary Pinkel, is enjoying its most sustained success in decades, this season (4-5, 2-4) notwithstanding. The Tigers have won at least 10 games and divisional championships in three of the past four seasons.

Even with that, the Tigers have won exactly one football championship in the past 50 years. That would have been in 1969, the year of the last all-white national championship team. Not that Mizzou is in a dry spell.

And now the Tigers, visions of long-term security in their heard, are stepping up their level of competition. The Tigers are like the Midwestern executive who takes a job in New York because it pays more. Only when he gets to Manhattan and discovers the price of rent and groceries does he understand that the rise in pay will include a decline in the standard of living.

Missouri's athletic budget in 2009-10 was roughly half of the $105 million that Florida spent. The world will spin a lot faster where the Tigers are going, just as it will for the Texas Aggies.

The latest round of realignment will end soon. Athletic programs will try to pick up where they left off, businesses that identify themselves as branches of academe, enterprises that pay lip service to the amateur ideal as they pay debt service to maintain the pace in the arms race. If you are a college fan, if you are to continue to enjoy Saturdays, you will understand more clearly the words of gangster Hyman Roth in "The Godfather II."

"This is the business we have chosen."

Ivan Maisel is a senior writer for ESPN.com and hosts the ESPNU College Football podcast. Send your questions and comments to him at Ivan.Maisel@ESPN.com.

Follow Ivan Maisel on Twitter: @Ivan_Maisel

[beautyfromashes]

Your posts are always full of reason and logic.

I'm not going to argue that my arguements aren't totally based on emotion. I'm pissed! The team that I am (was) a fan of moved conferences purely because of the need to break an odd number and the requirement of the SEC to choose a state that fought on the wrong side of a war hundreds of years ago. And my school bought it.

[KCMax]

So, West Virginia will do well in the Big 12 because they've been to a Final Four and a BCS Game?

And, Missouri will get their butts kicked in the SEC because they haven't been to a Final Four or BCS Game?

I never said that. I only repeated your insistence that West Virginia = Mizzou. Only Mizzou isn't quite as accomplished athletically.

FWIW, I think its getting overblown that Mizzou "can't compete" in the SEC. They'll still be decent. Its just that they won't have ten win seasons anymore like in the Big 12, it'll be more like a lot of 6-8 win seasons. Maybe once in a generation they'll reach ten wins and a SEC championship game. Conversely, I also think Mizzou fans are overestimating how good their basketball program will be in the SEC. A lot of programs in the SEC are more accomplished than Mizzou basketball the last decade or so.

So...good luck.

[AllThingsKC]

FWIW, I think its getting overblown that Mizzou "can't compete" in the SEC. They'll still be decent. Its just that they won't have ten win seasons anymore like in the Big 12, it'll be more like a lot of 6-8 win seasons. Maybe once in a generation they'll reach ten wins and a SEC championship game.

I agree...and that's almost exactly how MU has done in the Big 12 over the years.

[bobbyhawks]

FWIW, I think its getting overblown that Mizzou "can't compete" in the SEC. They'll still be decent. Its just that they won't have ten win seasons anymore like in the Big 12, it'll be more like a lot of 6-8 win seasons. Maybe once in a generation they'll reach ten wins and a SEC championship game.

I agree...and that's almost exactly how MU has done in the Big 12 over the years.

So, why move? $5 to $10 million extra a year will be sunk back into a program that will maintain the same winning percentage? If this is the case, all that can be said is you will be paying more money to coaches and ADs. The students will get a slight upgrade in facilities, but all of the history that makes your school special and unique is wiped from the slate so that you can win just as many games and championships as before.

[AllThingsKC]

So, why move? $5 to $10 million extra a year will be sunk back into a program that will maintain the same winning percentage? If this is the case, all that can be said is you will be paying more money to coaches and ADs. The students will get a slight upgrade in facilities, but all of the history that makes your school special and unique is wiped from the slate so that you can win just as many games and championships as before.

Probably for the same reasons West Virginia wants to leave the Big East.