Ouch, another reason for A&M to feel little the little brother no one pays attention to.
Far and away the most interesting part of that article is the fact that the Big"12" is addressing A&M’s concerns re: the Longhorn Network. I suspect a revenue-sharing agreement or the Big12 network will be the ultimate outcome.
Even as somebody who would find it highly amusing for the Ags to get smacked down by this deal, get kicked out of the Big XII, and end up as an involuntary independent, I don’t think this really settles it.
My understanding is that the SEC understands that the Big XII will come hit them hard with a suit for “inducing breach of contract” if there are signs that the SEC encouraged the Aggies to leave. I heard $1B being thrown about as a figure, but I don’t know how much it might actually be for - I believe a UT lawyer has his fingerprints all over a similar oil and gas case that he won back in the 80s.
I think that the SEC is probably saying “not interested” until all ties are officially broken. Then they’ll probably accept the TAMU application along with whatever others they add to get to 14 or 16. Then they can say that it wasn’t their fault that the Big XII was damaged, sue the Aggies (or don’t because of sovereign immunity - not too sure on that point).
However, I’d like nothing better for them to leave, submit papers to be admitted to the SEC, and be met with “we said we weren’t interested in new members on the 14th, can’t you read?”, while opponents meet them with S-E-C chants, home and away.
Threads merged by request. I hope I didn’t screw it up.
The dawn of the super conference just got pushed back a few years. Not sure if Mr. Beebe can soothe the hard feelings this time around. Maybe he can ask ESPN if pretty please they can rebrand the Longhorn Network the Big 12 Network…hahahahaha…good luck there. aTm will still be looking for the next train out of the TEXAS conference, but it looks like that train will take a year or two. In the meantime, I’m guessing sarcastic “S-E-C” chants will be the order of the day whenever the A&M teams go on the road. 
Sure, but there are hardly any meaningful rivalries in the mid-majors now thanks to all the previous reshuffles. USF is actively lobbying against adding UCF to the Big East, for reasons I don’t fully understand.
Anyway, nobody offers the long-term potential of UCF, simply based on size. The question is whether anybody cares about long-term potential with so many short-term dollars at stake.
I, for one, continue to believe that there is nothing inevitable about superconferences. One, geographical and “cultural” coherence is still important to the big conferences; the more teams you add, the tougher that is to maintain. Two, you only need 12 teams to have a conference championship game. Once you have 12 teams, the incentive to add more is reduced.
Maybe they’re recruiting the same guys, and don’t want to lose the ability to ask them “Would you rather play in CUSA, whatever that is, or a BCS conference?”
Interesting analysis here:
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1095821.html
The focus of the article is on the creation of 4 18-team super-conferences. I do think they’ve done a reasonable job of analyzing the real-world issues, but it’s still too neat for me. The actual process will be much messier. I also don’t think there’s any way in hell UT joins the SEC. If they go anywhere, they go PAC.
As for USF/UCF, UCF does give the Big East something they don’t have now, Orlando. USF has almost no following outside Tampa. Right now, UF owns Orlando, but UCF is a growing brand. I’m actually starting to see Knights merchandise in stores…
In Tallahassee?
Listening to ESPN radio this noon it sounds like the SEC “rejection” (really, just a ‘pass’) is the beginning of a short dance and A&M will be an SEC team in 2012 after a few dance steps get performed.
So, perhaps the SEC wants to get the other teams that will be invited (1 more or 3?) nailed down before they move forward, but it still seems weird that A&M had to be left publicly twisting the breeze though.
The speculation I read on another board yesterday, and is alluded to in an earlier post in this thread, is that the SEC doesn’t want to be liable for breaking up the BigXII, so to speak. If A&M becomes a “free agent,” then the SEC would pursue them. This is apparently how Nebraska went about leaving the BigXII and joining the Big Ten.
Also, the speculation was that the SEC wouldn’t expand to states they’re already in, which just leaves Missouri and Virginia, which would logically mean Mizzou and maybe VT. But after the hassle of getting VT into the ACC that went on in the state’s government, I doubt they’ll let VT go, unless UVA goes, too.
Yeah, that’s what I’m hearing. Gotta quit the Big 12 first, so the SEC doesn’t look like it’s poaching teams.
Speculation here in Missouri is that Mizzou will use any SEC interest in an effort to get the B1G to bite. The B1G is where Mizzou would prefer to go (it matches up a little better academically and regionally). I just hope we don’t bite off more then we can chew and get left in the dust.
Just for kicks I looked at the ND roster from 2006, under the prior Weis regime, and the Irish’s roster showed players had a pretty broad base
10 players from California
9 from Illinois
8 from Indiana, Pennsylvania and Texas
7 from Ohio
6 from Florida
5 from Minnesota and Georgia
4 from Maryland, Missouri and New Jersey
3 from Michigan
2 from Arizona, Mass, Connecticut and New York
1 from 12 other states.
yes, Mizzou almost got caught with their pants down, big time, last time there were teams changing conferences.
Yep. Caught me by surprise too. Good news is I have a buddy who is a die-hard fan and they go on sale pretty regularly. 
Makes sense, who would want to be in the same conference with two (and maybe three if Clemson ever joins) teams with the same mascot.
Really? You don’t see how they have a real risk of sucking up each other’s oxygen? So long as USF is in a bigger conference, they can look down their noses and tell recruits about how UCF is on TV less, can’t go to the BCS, etc.
At this point, speaking as mid-major fan but also as someone who works in higher education policy, I’m pretty much OK with the big 65-70 going off and doing their semi-pro thing. In terms of budget, fan base, institutional profiles, etc. most of the schools in the MAC/WAC/Sun Belt/C-USA have a lot more in common with the average 1-AA program than they do with the BCS teams. A three-tier system (with the bottom tier consisting only of 1-AA teams that offer few or no scholarships), seems to me to make a lot more sense.
We already have a three tier program - I-A/FBS, IAA or FCS or whatever the hell it’s called now, and Division III. Apparently, three tiers aren’t enough.