A&M to SEC talk heating up again...real or yawn?

• Writerbuckeye

  

  There are several articles out there talking about the Aggies looking to leave the Big 12 for the SEC ... again.
  
  Didn't we just go through this?
  
  If they do follow through, it means the whole conference re-alignment wars will start up again as the SEC will need at least one more school, the Big 12 will be in jeopardy of folding; Texas may just chuck it and become an independent; and the Big 10 (12) might look to add as many as four more schools (Missouri, are you ready now?)
• krambman

  

  There's no doubt in my mind that Texas A&M will end up in the SEC at some point. It's not a question of IF, but WHEN. The issue is, like you said, the SEC will need to add another team along with Texas A&M, so until they figure out who else to invite (Texas Tech, Louisville, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, etc.) Texas A&M will stay put. If TAMU does leave the Big XII then Texas most likely will go independent. The Pac-12 will then likely go after several of the left over Big XII schools to expand to 16 (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Texas Tech would be the most likely candidates).
  
  Missouri was ready to join the Big Ten and has been for years, but the Big Ten doesn't seem to want to have anything to do with them. If the Pac-12 expands to 16 then the Big Ten won't be too far behind and may end up having to take Missouri. Obviously they would like Notre Dame and if ND chooses to remain independent at the point they would likely stand to make half as much as they could in the Big Ten. I know the Big Ten was interested in Rutgers before, but their athletic department has the biggest gap between income and expenses in college athletics, so that makes them less appealing. I'd be interested to see what two other schools the Big Ten would pursue, but they are definitely most likely to go east.
• ts1227

  

  It's only a matter of time before the Big 12 folds. Most of the Big 12 ( particularly the North) freaked out last year and were willing to have Texas bend them over for the sake of keeping the conference together. A year later, they're all starting to realize Texas fucked them without the common courtesy of a reacharound and are pissed at themselves.
• OneBuckeye

  

  AM should have done this last year. They will GTFO soon enough.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  #YouveGotToBeKiddingMe. #NotAgain.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  God I love conference realignment.
  
  If SEC takes an ACC team with Texas A&M (Florida State or Clemson), who does the ACC take? Pittsburgh?
  
  If the ACC takes Pittsburgh, does the Big Ten elect to take another team? Missouri, Kansas? Central Florida?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Tobias Fünke;834412 wrote:God I love conference realignment.
  
  If SEC takes an ACC team with Texas A&M (Florida State or Clemson), who does the ACC take? Pittsburgh?
  
  If the ACC takes Pittsburgh, does the Big Ten elect to take another team? Missouri, Kansas? Central Florida?

  
  If the Big Ten wants to go super conference size, they would probably take Missouri, another Big 12 school (Kansas?) and then go East for two schools, one of them being Syracuse to open a footprint in New York. I'd say Rutgers, but I'm not sure their athletic program is big enough for Big Ten standards.
• Azubuike24

  

  The SEC will eventually expand to 16 teams. It's more of IF rather than WHEN.
• superman

  Azubuike24;834571 wrote:The SEC will eventually expand to 16 teams. It's more of IF rather than WHEN.

  I'm thinking the Falcons and the Panthers will be part of that deal. Those teams would love to stop having to deal with the salary cap.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Writerbuckeye;834542 wrote:I'd say Rutgers, but I'm not sure their athletic program is big enough for Big Ten standards.

  
  Nothing in the entire WORLD would make me happier...seeing as I work in the Rutgers athletic department. I would love to be apart of the Big Ten, playing Ohio State would be interesting haha
• vball10set

  Writerbuckeye;834542 wrote:If the Big Ten wants to go super conference size, they would probably take Missouri, another Big 12 school (Kansas?) and then go East for two schools, one of them being Syracuse to open a footprint in New York. I'd say Rutgers, but I'm not sure their athletic program is big enough for Big Ten standards.

  
  I really thought that Mizzou and Rutgers were going to join the Big Ten after Nebraska was announced last year, and I still think it'll happen (despite the fact that S&L works there-haha)
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Agree with the posts above, the Big 12 is living on borrowed time. aTm would kill to be in the SEC and Texas has its choice of the Pac-10 or Big 10.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;835104 wrote:Agree with the posts above, the Big 12 is living on borrowed time. aTm would kill to be in the SEC and Texas has its choice of the Pac-10 or Big 10.

  
  I think Texas made its choice when it did its own TV deal with ESPiN. I don't see them looking to move, now. They've got things set up financially so they can go independent. Unless one of the leagues sells out and gives Texas an advantage over every other school in the league, they won't be interested. They're used to having a different set of rules than everyone else. The Big Ten will not capitulate, so they're out. Not sure about the PAC 10.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  I agree. Texas will not join the Pac-12 or Big Ten, they will go independent. The rest of the Big XII, sans Texas A&M is in a very bad situation and they know it.
  
  I suppose Boise State (and maybe BYU, Houston, and SMU) could join with Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Texas Tech. Although Oklahoma and Boise State would dominate that conference. Boise State is a surprisingly good fit, especially with their wrestling program.
• the_system

  Tobias Fünke;836056 wrote:I agree. Texas will not join the Pac-12 or Big Ten, they will go independent. The rest of the Big XII, sans Texas A&M is in a very bad situation and they know it.
  
  I suppose Boise State (and maybe BYU, Houston, and SMU) could join with Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Texas Tech. Although Oklahoma and Boise State would dominate that conference. Boise State is a surprisingly good fit, especially with their wrestling program.

  All of what this guy says.
  
  Also,
  Texas was as good as 'in' in the PAC 12 but they waited until the last minute to say 'BTW, we're going to have our own network too.' The P12 told them to get f'd. No conference will take them with their own network. As mentioned, they are going independent eventually.
  
  Honestly it's getting to the point where it has to be done soon. Nebraska knew what was happening (eventual B12 collapse) and got out before it happened. If not, they could have been stuck trying to get in with the MWC or something. A lot of other teams were hoping the B10/SEC/P10 would call their name, but had to go crawling back to Texas and act like they never wanted to leave in the first place. They all hate Texas, know that they are basically holding the conference hostage, and will eventually cause it to crumble. I kinda feel bad for those schools.
  
  Oklahoma would probably go SEC with A&M. If I remember right the SEC wanted A&M before, but only if they could bring OU with them.
• Al Bundy

  Tobias Fünke;836056 wrote:I agree. Texas will not join the Pac-12 or Big Ten, they will go independent. The rest of the Big XII, sans Texas A&M is in a very bad situation and they know it.
  
  I suppose Boise State (and maybe BYU, Houston, and SMU) could join with Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Texas Tech. Although Oklahoma and Boise State would dominate that conference. Boise State is a surprisingly good fit, especially with their wrestling program.

  I don't see Oklahoma going for that long term. They may short term if they were stuck, but they would be looking to jump conferences.
• enigmaax

  Al Bundy;836647 wrote:I don't see Oklahoma going for that long term. They may short term if they were stuck, but they would be looking to jump conferences.

  
  Wonder if the Pac 12 would re-establish its bid to expand to 16, assuming Texas and A&M were out of the fold? It isn't nearly as sweet a deal for the conference w/o the cash cow, so my guess is they're content at 12.
  
  Oklahoma could either be f'd more than anyone in this whole deal (or they could just piece together an even crappier conference to keep dominating). If the SEC doesn't pull them in along with A&M, they aren't going to really have any other options (independent as well?).
• Al Bundy

  enigmaax;836718 wrote:Wonder if the Pac 12 would re-establish its bid to expand to 16, assuming Texas and A&M were out of the fold? It isn't nearly as sweet a deal for the conference w/o the cash cow, so my guess is they're content at 12.
  
  Oklahoma could either be f'd more than anyone in this whole deal (or they could just piece together an even crappier conference to keep dominating). If the SEC doesn't pull them in along with A&M, they aren't going to really have any other options (independent as well?).

  I am not a fan of superconferences (I don't like the idea of playing a team in your conference every 3 years), but I know they are going to continue to happen. When the Big 10 expands again, I would much rather see them go after Oklahoma than Missouri or Rutgers. You may have to take Oklahoma State as a package deal. Assuming the Big 10 can't land Notre Dame, I see Oklahoma near the top of the list of teams that would be good for the Big Ten.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Honestly, a lot of big 12 teams fit well in the Big Ten because a lot of them have good tradition with a specific sport that is really good. Problem is, most big 12 teams have a really good basketball program but a really awful football program, orvice versa.
  
  For example:
  Kansas has great basketball, bad football
  Oklahoma has great football, bad basketball (although there is tradition there).
  
  You're just gonna have to take whichever program you think has the bad program with the most upside. IMO that is Oklahoma, which has great football, and a bad basketball program that's been hit with ncaa penalties to their bball program. They have been AWFUL (losing to a division 2 team last year, lol) but were decent in the early 2000s and with the Griffin brothers.
• Al Bundy

  SportsAndLady;836759 wrote:Honestly, a lot of big 12 teams fit well in the Big Ten because a lot of them have good tradition with a specific sport that is really good. Problem is, most big 12 teams have a really good basketball program but a really awful football program, orvice versa.
  
  For example:
  Kansas has great basketball, bad football
  Oklahoma has great football, bad basketball (although there is tradition there).
  
  You're just gonna have to take whichever program you think has the bad program with the most upside. IMO that is Oklahoma, which has great football, and a bad basketball program that's been hit with ncaa penalties to their bball program. They have been AWFUL (losing to a division 2 team last year, lol) but were decent in the early 2000s and with the Griffin brothers.

  Football makes the $$$$$ and has been the motivation behind all of the conference moves.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Al Bundy;836769 wrote:Football makes the $$$$$ and has been the motivation behind all of the conference moves.

  
  And you're right. Football should determine who they want. I'm saying if they can't get a, say, Oklahoma...it's okay to "settle" for a school like Kansas (zero chance KU goes to Big Ten, just a hypothetical) because their basketball program would bring in an extra large amount of revenue through basketball.
• OhioStatePride2003

  SportsAndLady;836759 wrote:Honestly, a lot of big 12 teams fit well in the Big Ten because a lot of them have good tradition with a specific sport that is really good. Problem is, most big 12 teams have a really good basketball program but a really awful football program, orvice versa.
  
  For example:
  Kansas has great basketball, bad football
  Oklahoma has great football, bad basketball (although there is tradition there).
  
  You're just gonna have to take whichever program you think has the bad program with the most upside. IMO that is Oklahoma, which has great football, and a bad basketball program that's been hit with ncaa penalties to their bball program. They have been AWFUL (losing to a division 2 team last year, lol) but were decent in the early 2000s and with the Griffin brothers.

  
  Not calling you out by any means because I'm not sure there were any "sanctions", but Kelvin Sampson DID coach at Oklahoma.
• enigmaax

  Al Bundy;836741 wrote:I am not a fan of superconferences (I don't like the idea of playing a team in your conference every 3 years), but I know they are going to continue to happen. When the Big 10 expands again, I would much rather see them go after Oklahoma than Missouri or Rutgers. You may have to take Oklahoma State as a package deal. Assuming the Big 10 can't land Notre Dame, I see Oklahoma near the top of the list of teams that would be good for the Big Ten.

  
  I guess I never heard any talk to think that Oklahoma would ever be a realistic Big Ten target, but that would be another pretty good score for them.
  
  I know the talk has been that some teams are going to target a 16 team league. I have to wonder where the breaking point that makes expansion financially worthwhile. Do non-elite teams really bring in enough TV money to increase the split amongst all those schools?
• The Equalizer

  

  Is Rutgers that much smaller than Northwestern?
• krambman

  

  The Equalizer;836888 wrote:Is Rutgers that much smaller than Northwestern?

  
  Rutgers has 39,000 undergrads and 14,000 graduate students.
  Northwestern has 8,500 undergrads and 11,000 graduate students.
  
  Rurgers also has 27 varsity sports to Northwestern's 19.
  
  So no, Rutgers isn't that much smaller than Northwestern.