Mizzou Regents Vote for Option to Bolt

It's simple, people. Texas does NOT want to move to another conference. There are many reasons for this, but the bottom line is that UT absolutely prefers to stay put in a conference that is centered around the state of Texas. Which makes plenty of sense.

Look at the A&M conference-switching trainwreck and also at the egg on the face for OU/Boren after trying to ***** themselves to the Pac-12. UT will have to sacrifice a lot of its identity and strengths in order to join another (far away) conference, which Longhorn fans who clamor for switching conferences conveniently ignore.

If Texas can pocket an extra $15 million a year from LHN, plus another $3 million or so in exit fees from each school that elects to leave the Big XII => IIX Conference, then UT will be happy to do that for a few years, while it rebuilds its football team and ramps up its LHN Death Star.
 
**** fire, why don't they just put their entire Board of Curiosities in pink tutus and crotchless panties and start spamming craigslist?
 
The Pac sucks.
Wisconsin could run the table and no own will care.
The ACC? Meh.
There is only the SEC and the Big 12 whose games are watchable and significant.
 
Can we just dump the LHN and join the B1G already? This conference is done and the TCUs, Louisvilles, UHs, etc. aren't going to save it.
 
I'll say it again, if and when we get to 8 teams we might explore an tv affiliation with the big east. Ideally both conferences would have 8 teams. At the end of the football season, there could be an East/West Showdown game. This would not be a conference championship game and both conference champions would retain their BCS ticket. Just thinkin.
 
So, the Mizzou AD is authorized to explore options. Aren't the AD's of OU, Texas, and half the other schools similarly empowered?

Of course, Mizzou was the one that started this whole mess by flirting with the Big Ten a year ago. I don't see how they fit into the SEC geographically or culturally, but money does make for strange bedfellows.
 
If Missour leaves, the conference should consider a name change that does not include the word "Big" in it.
 
Mo could be the power in the B 12 N., assuming enough teams get added to have 2 divisions. With no NU to contend with, they could expect to play for the B 12 every season, assuming they don't get eclipsed by KSU. In the SEC, they will be sub .500 forever. Vanderbilt is giddy over the news.
 
BOB -- Don't have a link. I just recall that there were lots of supposed "leaks" and twitter posts from the usual suspects about TTech liking the Pac 12 idea because of more dollars and the belief that it would help improve their academic standing over time (see e.g. Penn State going from 3rd Tier to #47 in USNWR in decade after joining B1G). I have no idea how accurate those were, or what the actual beliefs are among the TTech higher-ups (don't even know who they are), but the rumors made sense on their face, i.e. going from $14M to $30+M is an obvious no-brainer for them.

The point is, none of the GOOD programs want to be in the Big 12 anymore. Neb, CU, and aTm have all left, and OU and Missou want to. OSU probably does too (they like money too).

When you are replacing those schools with mid-majors (BYU, TCU, UH, SMU, etc) or Big East left-overs (WVU, Cincy, Lou, etc), you are losing.

I have friends that are SEC guys, B1G guys and Pac 12 guys. They all laugh at what is happening to the Big 12, and they are convinced that the REAL reason UT wants to stay put is we are too skeered to play in a "real" conference, and would prefer to dominate a 2nd rate conference of mostly 3rd tier schools (we are also greedy and arrogant, of course). Like it or not, that same perception is percolating among the talking heads of college football -- which means voters -- and that will be poison when it comes to MNC nods, where talking points dictate tiebreakers.

I get why UT wants to keep the Big 12 together. The problem is no one good wants to stay, which means there will never be stability and we will deal with this same issue for the forseeable future. I think there is a real chance that that uncertainty will undermine the program over time, and allow our competitiors to negative recruit us effectively (i.e. "Do you want to play in an unstable conference against weak competition in games no one cares about and end up in also-ran bowls, or do you want to play in the best conference in America with the Gameday Bus parked outside your home stadium with the MNC on the line, while the whole nation is watching, including NFL scouts who won;t have to question the quality of the opposition you are playing?")

What I care about are three things: (1) the overall academic mission of the school and its national prestige, (2) the quality of the competion we will play and the number of "big games" we can look forward to each year, and (3) playing in a conference with enough national respect that if we have 1 loss or better we have a legit shot at the MNC.

Adding those up, we need to be in the B1G or the Pac 12. I have a slight preference for the latter as it would allow us to go with 3 current rivals the B1G won't take, but either is preferable to spending the next 5-10 years trying in vain to bail water on a sinking ship.
 
Zona Horn,

I understand your arguments and concerns, and hate that the departing schools are using Texas as a convenient scapegoat. Texas is certainly no shining white knight in all of this, but many of the departing schools like NU and A&M have had their own issues/problems to mask while making their move. NU went from being a regular MNC contender in the Big 8 to perennial 3rd or 4th place in the Big 12, while the Aggies have acted true to their self-delusional form. That's not to say their departures don't hurt, of course.

As long as OU stays with Texas in the conference, the Big 12 has a fighting chance. The way I see it, NU and A&M departing (and blaming UT) is like the scene in Star Wars where Anakin cries out "It's all Obi-Wan's fault! I should be a Jedi by now! He's holding me back."

Please see the post with link to today's Tulsa World article/interview with DeLoss Dodds. It's a very good read.
 
BOB -- I'm not certain how much the powers that be (as opposed to fans) at Neb, CU, or even aTm really blamed Texas. Seems like most of their public comments were of the "we are just doing what is best for our school" variety. That said, the perception is certainly that UT is at fault somehow, which I agree is (mostly) misplaced. I say "mostly" because there are probably some things we could have done that may have helped keep the conference together (i.e. not pop off about airing HS games, agreeing to share tier 1 and 2 revenue sooner, etc), but that stuff is probably minor in the scheme of things. With the exception of aTm, the other schools that have or will soon leave are doing so for their own reasons: stability, money, prestige, etc.

We will see how it plays out. If we end up in a conference full of former mid-majors just to preserve the LHN, I'll be pretty dissapppinted. That seems to be where this is headed, but hopefully I'm wrong.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but it would have been a lot better if the Big 12 had made each member assign their TV rights to the conference for a long period of time (Pac 12 is 20 years, for all 3 tiers), which would have kept the 12 original teams together. Maybe there would have been some revenue sharing on Tier 3 rights that would have placated the masses while allowing Dodds the branding he wanted from the LHN (i.e. we run it how we want but kick some portion of the revenue into the common pool). That horse has obviously left the barn.
 
Even if the Big12 had always had equal revenue sharing and had developed a conference TV network like the Big10 did (i.e. no LHN), I don't think things would have changed IMHO. Once the Big 10 decided to expand followed by the SEC and Pac10, the Big12 became vulnerable for poaching from those conferences, as they could offer more TV revenue to a school due to their larger geographic footprints (i.e. TV markets and population base).

The instability of the Big12 has little to do with UT, but more to do with the fact that the Big12 can't compete financially with the SEC, Big10, and Pac12. UT itself (and probably OU) can overcome this disparity by generating significant revenue from its own network. But MU, A&M, NU, and CU probably can't, hence they left (or are leaving) for greener pastures.
 
If Tech and the other follower schools in the conference had viable, independent options, they'd leave. They don't, so their memberships are in a sense compulsory.
 
I will truly be surprised if Missouri moves to the SEC. Recall that about a year ago they were panting for an invitation to the Big 10. They will be a fish out of the water in the SEC. They are academically a lot like Vandy, and they would be able to take some comfort in that respect. But Mizzou has no business going to the SEC. The cheating and partial qualiifiers and the fans. Really, come on. Surely they are not that desparate. On the other hand, the Ags really do belong over there; the sooner the better.
 
Olhorn said: "They [Mizzou] are academically a lot like Vandy."

Oh my gosh, nothing could further from the truth! Academically, Mizzou is utterly mediocre. Here are U.S. News & World Report 2012 rankings for a few relevant colleges:

Vanderbilt - # 17
Texas - # 45
Texas A&M - # 58 (tie)
Florida - # 58 (tie)
Virginia Tech (other SEC option) - # 71
Alabama - # 75
Auburn - # 82
MISSOURI - # 90
 
The SEC as sloppy seconds for Mizzou??? I'm sure THAT'S gonna set well with Slive. Mizzou may wind up being lucky if they're even still in the Big XII in a week or two.
rolleyes.gif
 
I don't see Mizzou as anything like Vandy, and not just academics. Mizzou is a big, name state school, unlike Vandy.

As far as the SEC not "wanting" Mizzou, I don't agree with that either. Why not take a big, name state school like Missouri if you're Slive. These guys draw 61 per game, regular as clockwork, and they are important in the key metro cities of St. Louis and KC. What's not to like?

I don't think the B1G is in the market for MO, for some reason, but I sure think the SEC is.
 
So we should just get a group of teams that really want to be here? Good Lord, there are plenty of mid-major teams that are pounding on the Big-12 Light door to join, but none of these will replace the fan bases of Nebraska and A&M and the TV markets of Denver, St. Louis, and Kansas City.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top