Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread - Page 194

The old one has AIDS.

Anyways, Chip Brown from Orangebloods.com reports OU may apply to the Pac-12 by the end of the month.

Oklahoma will apply for membership to the Pac-12 before the end of the month, and Oklahoma State is expected to follow suit, a source close to OU's administration told Orangebloods.com.

Even though Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said Friday the Pac-12 was not interested in expansion at this time, OU's board of regents is fed up with the instability in the Big 12, the source said.

The OU board of regents will meet within two weeks to formalize plans to apply for membership to the Pac-12, the source said.

Messages left Sunday night with OU athletic director Joe Castiglione and Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder were not immediately returned.

If OU follows through with what appears to be a unanimous sentiment on the seven-member Oklahoma board of regents to leave the Big 12, realignment in college athletics could be heating back up. OU's application would be matched by an application from Oklahoma State, the source said, even though OSU president Burns Hargis and mega-booster Boone Pickens both voiced their support for the Big 12 last Thursday.

There is differing sentiment about if the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors are ready to expand again after bringing in Colorado and Utah last year and landing $3 billion TV contracts from Fox and ESPN. Colorado president Bruce Benson told reporters last week CU would be opposed to any expansion that might bring about east and west divisions in the Pac-12.

Currently, there are north and south divisions in the Pac-12. If OU and OSU were to join, Larry Scott would have to get creative.

Scott's orginal plan last summer was to bring in Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and put them in an eastern division with Arizona and Arizona State. The old Pac-8 schools (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State) were to be in the west division.

Colorado made the move in June 2010, but when Texas A&M was not on board to go west, the Big 12 came back together with the help of its television partners (ABC/ESPN and Fox).

If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were accepted into the Pac-12, there would undoubtedly be a hope by Larry Scott that Texas would join the league. But Texas sources have indicated UT is determined to hang onto the Longhorn Network, which would not be permissible in the Pac-12 in its current form.

Texas sources continue to indicate to Orangebloods.com that if the Big 12 falls apart, the Longhorns would consider "all options."

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe held an emergency conference call 10 days ago with league presidents excluding Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M and asked the other league presidents to "work on Texas" because Beebe didn't think the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma without Texas.

Now, it appears OU is willing to take its chances with the Pac-12 with or without Texas.

There seemed to be a temporary pause in any possible shifting of the college athletics' landscape when Baylor led a charge to tie up Texas A&M's move to the Southeastern Conference in legal red tape. BU refused to waive its right to sue the SEC over A&M's departure from the Big 12, and the SEC said it would not admit Texas A&M until it had been cleared of any potential lawsuits.

Baylor, Kansas and Iowa State have indicated they will not waive their right to sue the SEC.

It's unclear if an application by OU to the Pac-12 would draw the same threats of litigation against the Pac-12 from those Big 12 schools.

Stay tuned.
[Reply]

Long read, but Awesome.

Originally Posted by :
EXPANSION BY THE NUMBERS 9: ACADEMIC FIT
October 5th, 2011 07:00 AM║ Posted By: John Pennington

As we enter the homestretch of our numbers-specific look at SEC expansion, it might be a good time to look back at what we’ve done so far.

For starters, you can read our original lengthy piece on SEC expansion from May of 2010 right here. There are numbers involved, but our goal was to find which schools — out of the 18 we studied — would best fit the SEC’s profile for expansion. Take a look at it and you’ll find that Texas A&M — viewed as a tag-along with Texas by most people — and Missouri — not considered an SEC option by any other major outlets at the time — scored very highly in our study.

In the past year since that piece was published, we’ve spoken with a number of administrators and sources at BCS-level institutions who have said our breakdowns were on the mark in terms of what school presidents consider when discussing expansion. Armed with those attaboys, we contacted — and were contacted by — other sources in the television, media rights and college sports industries. We asked them for their views on what matters, why it matters, and how much it matters. And with that information, we began this year’s SEC expansion project.

The gist? We chose a ridiculous 35 schools for comparison just to makes sure someone didn’t say, “What about my team?” Sadly, we’ve gotten a lot of that anyway. But we looked at 35 knowing that not all of those 35 would be candidates for the SEC in any way, shape or form.

We also chose to use very simple numbers — often times the numbers used by our sources as examples when talking to us — to help explain what categories matter when it comes to expansion.

Part 1: Grading Potential SEC Partners served as our introduction.

Part 2: Television Markets was a look at the Top 40 television markets located within 200 miles driving distance of a school’s campus. A television network executive suggested we just look at the Top 40 markets because that’s likely what networks would consider. We put the line at 200 miles because a line had to be put somewhere.

Part 3: Total State Population provided an indication of the number of potential fans, cable households, and future students/alumni/donors living in a school’s home state.

Part 4: Proximity broke down the distances from our 35 schools to the center of the current conference — Birmingham.

Part 5: Fertile Recruiting Ground was an examination of the total number of NFL draft picks from each school’s home state over a 10-year period.

Part 6: Athletic Budgets looked at — wait for it — the athletic spending of each of the 35 schools on our list.

Part 7: Football Stadium Size attempted to put a gauge on how much fan support schools count upon as well as the level of “football craze” on each campus.

Part 8: Athletic Success broke down Director’s Cup success — in order to grasp schools’ overall athletic success — and the number of NCAA Tournament and bowl bids received over a 10-year span — in order to judge success in the two biggest money-making sports.

So…

* We’re looking at too big a selection of schools and we know it.

* We’re using simple numbers in order to avoid debate (though that really hasn’t helped much because anyone seeing a number that makes his/her school look bad immediately attacks that number).

* We know full well that Mike Slive and the SEC’s presidents will not be using a formula to judge expansion candidates. We’re using a formula only as a tool to show which categories matter — according to our multiple sources — when it comes to expansion.

* We’ve tried to make it clear that these categories are numeric representations of “reputations” held by the 35 schools we’re discussing. When it comes to academics, for example, we doubt Bernie Machen, Dan Jones and Harris Pastides will be thumbing through the college rankings of Forbes or US News and World Report. But they will, however, consider whether or not a school would help the SEC’s academic brand… and therefore their own institutions’. The numbers we use help to give you an idea of what reputations these schools carry in a number of areas. We’re using something specific to give you a view into the generic.

* We’ve also tried to make it clear that the politics and timing of expansion can make one category the most important one minute and the least important the next. Think of it like drafting quarterbacks. QB1 and QB2 might be separated by their accuracy. But QB2 and QB3 might be equally accurate which would require them to judged based upon their mobility, for example. In other words — just as our sources have tried to provide for us — we’re trying to provide for you a ballpark idea of how these decisions are made. Nothing is cut and dried. These categories matter, but they may matter in totally different ways to different conferences.

* Finally, we haven’t skewed the numbers. In fact we haven’t even tallied them yet. We’ve written on numerous occasions that Missouri will be accepted as School #14 if it breaks away from the Big 12. We’re not alone in saying that, of course. We’ve said that numerous SEC sources believe Slive would love to land North Carolina (though we think that’s impossible). And we’ve said that West Virginia likely would be a fallback choice only, even though we believe WVU would be an excellent athletic and cultural fit. (Our sources have told us we’re right about West Virginia.) We’ve also stated our opinion that Florida State would be the best possible “get” for the league, but we’ve weighted things so strongly toward “new” markets and new land in this expansion series that FSU may score very, very low in our formula. Even so, we have our views, we know what shaped them, and we know who shares them. So we don’t need to try and convince you to agree with us. We’re not trying to brainwash Slive or influence any SEC presidents (as has been suggested), though I’m sure they’re all glued to this site as we speak. If you agree with our views, great. If you don’t, fine. The only thing we’re trying to convince you of is what matters in these expansion discussions.

All that said, in Part 9, we’re going to look at the academics of our 35 schools.

This Category: Academic Fit

Why: Because the SEC has a definite “type” of school and that similarity helps bind it together. For our purposes, we’ll look at whether or not the 35 schools on our list are an academic fit with the SEC’s 12 current schools. And we’ll do this by studying a number of different factors.

US News and World Report’s 2012 rankings help to give a general idea of a school’s academic reputation. Total enrollment is considered. Ditto whether or not a school is private or a major, public university. We’ll look at religious affiliation as well as the size of the city in which each school is located.

To find the academic fits out there, we first had to identify the SEC’s profile. And here’s what that profile is (not counting soon-to-be-member Texas A&M):

* A public institution. Vanderbilt is the SEC’s only private school.

* A school with an average total enrollment of about 27,000 students (typically with a lesser emphasis on post-graduate studies and research).

* A school ranked somewhere between #58 (Florida) and #157 (Mississippi State). Vanderbilt ranks #17, but it’s certainly not the norm in the SEC. Note also that while presidents would love to nab a school ranked highly (meaning a school with a superb reputation), those schools aren’t likely to jump to Slive’s league. Call it the “halo effect.” School presidents want to associate with other top-name institutions in order to improve their own school’s reputation (and donations).

* A school with no religious affiliation. Not a single SEC school is tied to a church.

* A school in a somewhat rural area. With the exception of Vanderbilt, no SEC school is located in a city with more than 300,000 inhabitants. This “one-horse town” factor is one reason SEC fans are so passionate about their schools’ athletic exploits. With the exception of Nashville, there are no SEC towns featuring major league teams.

That’s a pretty clear profile. Now which of our 35 schools fit it?

The chart below lists the schools from the ACC followed by the Big East, Big 12 and our five “wild cards.” Areas that do not fit the SEC’s profile are italicized. For us to deem a school as a poor academic fit, it must fail to match the SEC profile in two of our four main categories. (Enrollment varies, so we’ll not count off there. That category is just for your information.)

* Keeping in mind that we’re talking about an academic fit and not whether or not a school is a good fit location-wise, athletics-wise, etc… we would consider 12 schools to be “perfect” fits with the SEC from an academic sense: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Rutgers, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M.

* Last summer, the whole world expected the SEC to turn east in expansion, but instead it’s landed Texas A&M, talked to Oklahoma (last year), and is apparently waiting on Missouri this year. The dysfunctional make-up of their conference is one reason for that, sure, but no league more closely resembles the SEC than the Big 12. Like the SEC, the Big 12 is made up mostly of big, public schools in rural areas. Big 12 schools fit the SEC profile. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the SEC is considering Big 12 schools or membership.

* A number of schools are listed as being academic fits with the SEC, without being perfect. Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and Penn State are all considered to be better academic schools than those in the SEC — fair or not. They also reside in conferences that are considered to be more academically reputable than the SEC. And we haven’t yet seen any school migrate from the ACC, Big Ten or Pac-12 for leagues with lesser scholastic reputations.

* NC State, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are located in larger cities — all with pro teams — and that doesn’t fit the SEC profile. But of those, NC State would be the most likely SEC target because the Wolfpack would give the SEC a foothold in a large Southern state. Another plus for NC State is the fact that despite the city’s size, the only major league professional franchise in town happens to be an NHL team.

* Schools like Texas Tech, West Virginia and East Carolina would add very little to the SEC’s academic reputation. As we’ve noted elsewhere on this site, we’ve heard from more than one source that there are presidents in the league who have concerns about WVU’s reputation. That’s not to say it’s a bad school or that that fact is a dealbreaker, only that it’s been mentioned as an issue. Sorry to anyone that upsets, but it’s what we’ve been told by people working in the administration side of more than one SEC school. (Something has cause WVU to be passed over in the current expansion frenzy.) And if there are academic concerns regarding WVU’s ability to aid the SEC’s reputation, you can bet the same would be true of Texas Tech and East Carolina. Especially ECU.

* Syracuse would be a perfect fit from an academic standpoint if it weren’t a private school. The SEC only has one of those at the moment.

For the sake of comparison, here are the facts and figures for the SEC’s current roster of universities:

* As you can see, 11 of the SEC’s 12 institutions are very, very similar. It’s not hard to spot the league’s overall profile.

* Not surprisingly, Texas A&M will fit the SEC profile perfectly. And if Missouri joins the league, MU will be a perfect academic fit as well.

* Vanderbilt is clearly the outsider in the bunch. A Top 20, private university, located in a major metropolitan area with professional teams competing for entertainment dollars.

* With Vanderbilt, the average US News and World Report rank for an SEC school is #99. Without Vandy, that number falls to about #107.

Up next in Part 10 of our SEC expansion series, we’ll provide some final bonus categories, a full tally of the scores, and a number of observations and conclusions regarding each school on our list.

http://www.mrsec.com/2011/10/expansi...-academic-fit/
[Reply]

Mike DeArmond is a train wreck.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Wickedson:
Kansas is completely happy and makes all the money they need in this conference. They have no reason or desire for things to change so in that regard they are hardly without blame.

You're a tool.
[Reply]

Has anybody checked on Stewie? He lost a lot of blood last night.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by frazod:
Has anybody checked on Stewie? He lost a lot of blood last night.

He's really outed himself to be a complete dumbass. Kinda sad.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
Mike DeArmond is a train wreck.

Nate Bukaty was literally sobbing live on the air.

"What about my kids?"
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
Mike DeArmond is a train wreck.

Dear God, that was painful listening to DeArmond this morning. I mean, was he drunk, having a seizure, or just still a raving dumbass?
[Reply]

This was lost in the shuffle last night, but another great article from Clay Travis on Outkick The Coverage.

Originally Posted by :

Originally Posted by :

Missouri Fans Triumph In SEC Campaign

Published on: October 04, 2011 | Written by: Clay Travis

Missouri fans decided they wanted to join the SEC and they would not accept no for an answer. Over the past three weeks the Tigers have inundated the board of curators, administrators, and other athletic department officials demanding that the Tigers join the SEC. A few minutes ago those fans' voices were heard: Missouri officially announced its board of curators had unanimously given the chancellor of the university authority to explore conference options. Welcome to the SEC, Missouri fans, you've fought for a league bid when your administration wanted to stay in the Big 12 and risk the future.

When the administration was too afraid to act, the Missouri fans stepped up and refused to risk the status quo. What if the Big 12 nears implosion again in a few years -- which it will -- what if Missouri is left standing when this game of conference realignment musical chairs comes to an end? Nope, Missouri fans weren't willing to risk that.

Not hardly.

That's because the college football universe has changed. And it's not all because of conference realignment. If this had been 1992, the last time the SEC expanded, Missouri's administration could have ignored the fan base and the massive percentages of Mizzou fans -- approaching 90% -- who wanted the SEC. But with the rise of social media, the Internet, Twitter, and Facebook, fans have the ability to mobilize like never before. OKTC felt the groundswell of fan support ever since we broke the news a month ago that Missouri had become the SEC's top target for a 14th school.

Missouri fans visited the site in record numbers as we continued to post updates on the Big 12 insanity. Finally, Chuck Neinas, interim Big 12 commissioner gave the SEC an opening. Asked whether the Big 12 would survive without Missouri Neinas replied: "Yes, I think it could be viable because there's a lot of strength in the conference."

If the Big 12 wasn't going to die, then the SEC couldn't be blamed for swooping in and making a second big-time addition in the same month.
Now that Missouri is exploring options, let's consider what we know. (By the way, you don't explore options with the intent of staying. Try that line on your girlfriend.)

1. SEC commissioner Mike Slive winsthis stage of realignment.

Slive's SEC adds two AAU schools, doubling the SEC's number of members, adds 31 million people to the SEC's existing 50 million population footprint, goes in to two new states with large media markets, and snags two of the Big 12's four most valuable programs -- Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Missouri were the four most valuable remaining Big 12 schools.

Given that Oklahoma came with the price of Oklahoma State, Texas has always been too scared to join the SEC, and West Virginia isn't a good school and has contractual committments in the Big East until 2014, Texas A&M and Missouri are plum additions.

2. The SEC Network in partnership with ESPN is coming.

This is still not getting much attention outside of OKTC, but I'm telling y'all this -- the addition of Texas A&M and Missouri is not just about getting more money out of the existing network deals. This is about more, a coming network partnership between the SEC and ESPN that will be a stand-alone channel modeled after the Big Ten Network.

Read about that network in two columns I did last week.

How quickly could this EC/ESPN partner network launch? In time for the 2012 football season if both sides move rapidly, which I think they'll be incentivized to do.

3. Missouri will make a decision to join the SEC by December 1, 2011.

That's because as OKTC told you last week -- there is no legitimate fear of a lawsuit and the Big 12 bylaws are so poorly drafted the damages for departing will be limited. You can read why that is here.

Missouri's exit fee should be the exact same as Texas A&M so long as they leave the Big 12 before December 1, 2011.

4. Auburn will probably swing to the SEC East.

This will be discussed at the SEC athletic director's meeting taking place tomorrow.

The SEC will play with two divisions.

The SEC East will be: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Auburn

The SEC West will be: Texas A&M, Missouri, Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State

5. Who will be Missouri and Texas A&M's yearly rivals?

You'll note that with Auburn's move to the SEC East, the Iron Bowl will become the cross division rivalry. Auburn's game against Georgia will be preserved now as a divisional game.

That means Tennessee and Georgia will need new yearly rivalry games. Who will play Texas A&M and who will play Missouri? That will also be discussed at the SEC athletic director's meeting tomorrow.

Here's an early guess for the Vols drawing Texas A&M. Yep, A&M may have dropped one UT for another.

Now, UT fans are already noting this -- the yearly UT-Alabama game would be the biggest casualty of realignment. The game could be preserved for a year or two, but going forward it would require either nine conference games -- a move that the lesser football schools would fight like hell because it might kill their bowl chances -- or an expansion to 16 and a further reevaluation of all schedules.

That's why I'm in favor of a simpler solution.

6. Split Missouri and A&M putting the two newest additions in different divisions in the same model used before when Arkansas and South Carolina were added.

In this scenario Missouri and Texas A&M would be yearly rivals but would play in the SEC East and SEC West respectively.
Personally, I like this plan much better. Here's a map courtesy of Mizzou2theSEC.

This would have the benefit of preserving all existing rivalries.

Now the difficulty here is that Missouri would have long trips to Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Games that are difficult to travel to over a weekend.

That could be ameliorated a bit, however by assigning Arkansas as the opening opponent in the SEC West. How about this to begin for Missouri: road games at Arkansas, Kentucky, UT and Vandy, home games with Florida, Georgia, A&M, and Kentucky.

All of the first season's road games would be easily reachable by car. Plus, the mileage for every game but Florida is less than the mileage for a game at Austin, Texas.

Don't believe me? Mental geography can be confusing.

Which is closer to Columbia, Missouri, Athens, Georgia or Austin, Texas?
Athens is actually 60 miles closer. Indeed, Missouri is closer geographically to every SEC East school (Florida excepted) than it is to Texas A&M.

Which do y'all prefer?

Especially with 14 likely just a couple of year stopping off point en route to 16.

7. Now comes the prolonged courtship dance between Missouri and the SEC.

It's already started, and it's a bit like how a vice-president is selected as a running mate.

The offer doens't come until you're sure of the answer.

Missouri will now prepare an application for the SEC and the SEC presidents will consider that application.

Expect for it to be accepted.

And expect for Missouri to join the conference at the same time as Texas A&M.

There's only one complexity that can happen now -- what if the Big Ten suddenly awakes from its slumber and gets interested in expansion too? Then the conference realignment hibernation comes to end in an instant. Until then, and I don't think the Big Ten is waking, Missouri fans are going to be working on their suntans.

Put on sunglasses, Mizzou fans, your future is bright. And lined with sundresses and championships.

[Reply]