yh

This is St. Louis - the correct pronunciation is "warsh."

I still think the SEC has Oklahoma in the back of their minds. Just saying. Sure they do, however there's a lot of hoops to jump to make that happen. First, they'd have to bring OSU in too. OU and OSU are absolutely a package deal. Second, they'd almost surely have to contend with some level of legal wrangling with the Big XII. Remember, Chuck Neinas said that the Big XII would be fine without Missouri, but didn't say they'd be fine without any of the other schools. While Texas may be the "anchor" of the conference (feel free to infer multiple interpretations of that term), it's pretty clear that OU is part of the conference's bedrock. Third, the conference would still need to find one more school to round up the SEC roster to an even number. In all likelihood this would still be Missouri as they'd probably compete within a pod with the other Big XII refugees. Fourth, the SEC would have to be content with committing to what would likely be a "permanent" (relative term) 16 team configuration with no more options to capture more schools if and when the next tectonic conference shift comes. I'm not sure the SEC wants to be the first to 16 in this round of expansionpalooza.

Precisely. Missouri is now a redundant market for the Big 10. The only relevant TV markets within the state have a sufficient nexus with an exisiting Big 10 school. Missouri would have been an absolute slam-dunk for the Big 10 had Nebraska not joined. Now it's not even a worst-case scenario consideration. There simply aren't enough new TV's to capture.

Speaking of Tulane, I see where Bob Toledo stepped away from the head football coaching position today. If all of a sudden Mike Leach pops up as their new coach then my harebrained notion of a longshot Green Wave-to-the-Big-XII scenario I discussed a few pages back doesn't seem so far-fetched. Again, a guy like Leach could pull in a lot of local guys not on LSU's shopping list and could gut the recruiting base for the 3 other non-BCS schools in Louisiana. Suddenly, Tulane has a *fairly decent* program, perhaps on par with Kansas and (assumed invitee) Louisville. Plus, Leach knows how to recruit Texas and wouldn't it be lovely for him to steal a prospect or two from Tech? This is the kind of crap that festers in the unoccupied corners of my mind.

mod edit: this isn't a basketball discussion

mod edit: this isn't a basketball discussion

Unless they decide not to apply... then it kind of does matter what they decided. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Although I don't put it past the Mizzou administration to run the fool's errand, I have to believe they would not be moving forward with an application to the SEC without reasonable assurance that there is sufficient if not unanimous approval forthcoming from the SEC side. If they are engaging in this effort in a terribly haphazard manner then they are doing considerable damage to the university's already-scuffed reputation in the world of intercollegiate athletics. That's just outright malfeasance and the basis for removal from office which I believe is without historic precedent at the University of Missouri.

Saying you'd rather be in the B1G but would "settle" for the SEC is like a baseball free agent saying he'd rather be with the Yankees but would "settle" for the Red Sawks. I never said that. One person did and it amounted to nothing. Probably just someone running their mouth, making statements on their own personal preference. For the record, that was me. And it was officially reported in an ESPN article from an "anonymous official inside of the University of Missouri". The article didn't say "settle" but it did say that the Big 10 is Missouri's primary, first choice. But it also said that they would be excited to join the SEC, too. I'd call anything that isn't a first choice "settling", wouldn't you? It's not like Mizzou is going independent and will only join a conference if the B1G calls. Look, we're dealing with a group of COLLEGE PRESIDENTS, for crying out loud. I'm pretty sure they can read between the lines and divine the term "settling" from whatever was actually said. The issue is whether ANYTHING was actually said by anyone relevant within the University of Missouri. An "anonymous official" means absolutely nothing. It could be the president of the Student Athletic Board, the chair of the Pan-Hellenic Council, the Registrar, etc. If it wasn't the Chancellor, the Athletic Director or a member of the Board of Curators, it really doesn't matter. People outside the process don't speak for the University regarding this matter and I doubt very seriously that anyone within the SEC pays those kinds of comments any mind. Nonetheless, this non-scandal does highlight the need for Mizzou and the SEC to move this dance along. If Slive wants MU in the SEC fold, then he needs to get Alabama and Tennessee on board, suggest to MU that the time "might be right" to file an application and let's get going. At this juncture it appears MU remains poised to apply for SEC membership and I have to believe that they're sitting on their hands waiting for the secret wink or hand signal or whatever from Slive to make the application. If there's no way to turn the present SEC no votes to yes, then let's establish that so that MU can move forward with making the best out of its continued membership in the Big XII and the SEC can move on finding what now appears to be a very essential 14th school (in light of the BCS's requirement that all conferences with 2 divisions play at least 8 conference games).

You make good arguments from the logistical and competitive perspectives. However you disregard the most important perspective - the political one. I was stunned to see UT acquiesce on bringing another Texas school into the fold. I just can't imagine there being further acquiescence to bringing in another one under just about any circumstance. But, if this whole merry-go-round has taught me one thing, it's don't blink because strange stuff happens.

If it weren't for the Big East schools getting them first, then I could see Houston. SMU is more of a last resort, 12th member, maybe higher if they're trying to be a 14-16 member conference. I think the Big XII is done with Texas. Uncle DeLoss has made his concession and there shall be no more division of the Lone Star pie. If Mizzou stays (and, as I said above, I think that may happen now), I think the next two schools in are Louisville and . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . Tulane. Two lines of thinking here: First, if the SEC is going to stick its toe into Texas then I think the Big XII is going to want to stick its toe into SEC territory (not to suggest that suggest that Tulane and LSU are peers). It helps make the argument to TV partners that there's a reason to up the ante on a broadcast contract. And, I suppose, there's the possibility that the right climate might even allow for a network to come up with Big XII/SEC doubleheaders and whatnot. But that's only one argument, and likely the only one that will be discussed openly. The second line of thinking is that extending the Big XII's reach into the deeper South will seriously cripple the Sun Belt, CUSA and even the WAC. By giving kids in Louisiana (and I'd argue Mississippi, Kentucky and Tennessee) more options to attend a school in a BCS conference, it weakens the recruiting base for the LA directional schools, Southern Miss, Memphis, MTSU, etc. It also hurts Tulsa because there's some more southern schools that might be aligned in a division with the OK schools or set up in a schedule where they'll play at least one OK school every year. Draining the Sun Belt, CUSA and WAC of what few decent prospects their better schools currently get will certainly make the argument for a "Super 64" arrangement stronger and may wind up producing yet another "I-AA" situation where the lesser competitive schools play for their own prizes, quite likely with a handful of the better FCS squads moving into this tier. It may also provide an opportunity for some of the fourth tier bowls to get some new life if they have "National Championship" implications in this new mezzanine tier. Maybe I'm way off base here, but if I'm thinking it I can guarantee you there are people in the conferences thinking it too. We're headed for a Super 64 and the only issue is how that gets pulled off with the schools not making the cut throwing too big of a tantrum because they were invited into the back room to hang out with Jugdish, Mohammet, Sidney and Clayton.

This is a mistake, IMO... West Virginia fits in perfectly with the SEC both culturally and geographically. One rejection doesn't permanently seal WVU's fate. It just means that at the time they applied there was insufficient interest on the part of the SEC. Nine of twelve schools must approve an application into the SEC. If eight schools had interest but four held off because they wanted to pursue the Mizzou angle, then things could change quickly if (and now I'm starting to believe when) Mizzou chooses to stay put in a purportedly stabilized Big XII. Their biggest issues are a small stadium so less $$$ for the gate and that I am pretty sure that Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA do not want to be in the same conference with an institution whose six year undergraduate graduation rate (for all students) is just 26%! Moreover, I believe the biggest knock on BSU continues to be their relatively limited offering of athletics. They don't compete in a number of the "non-revenue" sports that happen to be popular on the other Pac 12 campuses. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that BSU would need to add some programs on the men's side which would then trigger Title IX obligations to increase the number of sports available to the ladies. Naturally, the only way an expansion of the athletic department could be financed is through significant increases to football ticket prices, and if the Broncos are going to find themselves in a significantly more challenging football conference, the question begs whether fans will want to pay a lot more to see a team whose chances to contend for a BCS bid may fall by the wayside in early October rather than the second to last weekend in November.

I'll take that bet.

Unnamed "source" with the very vague title of "university official." Nothing to see here, folks. Not really surprised to see this being heralded by The Longhorn Network's corporate partner as some kind of major story. It isn't. If Mike Slive wants Mizzou in, then they're in. Regarding the reports that Alabama is leading a bloc of "no" votes: that could certainly be the case, however I stand by my contention that Slive will see to it that this small faction is pacified or otherwise cajoled into voting "yes" if he deems a Mizzou add is best for the conference. Now, that's still a big "if," but I don't see any better alternative out there if (another big "if") the SEC believes a balanced conference alignment is necessary for 2012. Yesterday's meeting of the AD's wherein the logistics of scheduling formats for 13 teams and no more were discussed suggests that balance is not necessary in the short term. Bama's tapping the brakes on any imminent Mizzou addition may, however, be a means to get the conference presidents to give consideration to whether or not there's going to be a 15th and 16th school added. If their stated concerns about preserving football rivalries with Auburn and Tennessee are at the core of this supposed "no" vote on Mizzou, those might be allayed by an expansion plan that would get Alabama into a division with both rivals. Whatever the end result is, it will be driven by Mike Slive who is now firmly in the driver's seat with respect to the future of big time college football.

Highly doubtful on both counts. The SEC's expansion is being driven primarily by the potential television revenue to be generated by an SEC Network. FSU would be a redundant add and would also be met with great resistance by UF. WVU has already been turned down by the SEC and that's largely due to the lack of sizeable television markets compared to the Kansas City and St. Louis screens that Mizzou would bring to the conference. Reading between the lines of all the statements coming from Mike Slive and his cohorts, it appears that expansion wasn't high on the list of SEC priorities, however Texas A&M's addition brings in a state with a population of 25 million, which is roughly half of the combined population of the existing SEC footprint. That greatly increases the value of a potential television deal. From an alignment standpoint, an odd number creates inconvenience, albeit not an insurmountable obstacle. Therefore, if the SEC decides to move to an even number of schools, they're going to look to add to their roster of potential TV viewers. Missouri adds 6 million to the population base; West Virginia - 2 million; Florida - zero since UF is already in the picture. So, if (and I do think it's still an if at this point) the SEC goes to 14, I think Missouri has the inside track (but they could still squander their opportunity; as a Mizzou alum and decades-long follower, I can foresee a number of ways they gag this one away). Plus, the litigation threat from the Big XII has already gone away. Taking a second school from that conference (whose interim commissioner has already indicated is viable without Mizzou) does not revive that threat. It's an easy add for the SEC if they want to add. If they're looking for a bigger add that comes with risks, then they probably go with Virginia Tech (which brings a state population of 8 million) or NC state (which brings a population of nearly 10 million). I just don't see FSU or WVU as impending SEC expansion schools. But this is big time college athletics in the 21st Century, so nothing would be entirely surprising to me.

I think the focus will be more on the markets than the geography, not to the complete exclusion of the latter. I think it would make more sense from a rivalry standpoint to replace Atlanta with another Southern city, i.e. Nashville, to maintain Columbus/Ohio's Rust Belt rivalries with Detroit and Chicago, and to bring Minnesota back into a quasi-Norris Division configuration with old mates Chicago, Detroit and St. Louis.

And I thought he was hard to look at on the sidelines. Man, getting him into all of those different uniforms must have been quite the pretty feat.

Proposed Realignment of the Gotham Professional Football League North Division New York New York New York New York Empire State Division New York New York New York New York Eastern Division New York New York New York New York Western Division New York New York New York Los Angeles* *Subject to league approval of request to relocate to New York