Nebraska is not the KC market. Kansas and Mizzou are. And Mizzou has a bigger piece of the St. Louis pie than Illinois. And besides, not everything comes down to what market they are. This isn't professional sports. Some of these schools are simply big money makers based on their own athletic teams. Kansas is one of the biggest basketball draws (as much as it pains me to say that), but football is not. They're not gonna go after them directly, but they'd be a decent "attachment school" if they went after Mizzou. Speaking of which, is becoming a steady football program that could become a Top 25 fixture. I still think, and would hope, that Mizzou winds up in the SEC if the Big XII does in fact dissolve. The whole reason that Nebraska was admitted to the Big Ten instead of the Tigers last year was that the Huskers convinced the Big Ten that they had enough alums in Kansas City to cover the town and to get BTN into those households. If that's what the Big Ten wanted, then they got what they wanted, their product on in more households. That's not what it was. Nebraska has alums all over the midwest, not just KC. They could've claimed any market over the other. It had nothing to do with simply the KC market as you seem to believe. Nebraska is a traditionally money making football college, plain and simple. Not because of a TV market 200 miles away in another state that's primarily a tv market for two other schools. You're actually making your case sound worse than. What you're telling me is that Mizzou would have put BTN on in households in Kansas City, while Nebraska can put them on across the Dakotas, in Omaha, and in Kansas City? All the Big Ten cares about right now is getting their product into as many homes as possible, and the combination of Nebraska and Illinois has put it on across Missouri, no? You can't tell me that they wouldn't rather add the Baltimore/Washington, New York, and Boston markets as opposed to "strengthening" viewership in St. Louis and Kansas City. There's a lot more money to be made and a lot more households to get into from the east coast schools than Missouri. Now, I could understand if Missouri was a top athletic school, but stop pretending like it's on the level of prestige of a Nebraska, Ohio State, or Penn State. The whole state doesn't behave like those states do when it comes to caring about the university. Mizzou going to the SEC is a move that makes the most sense for everybody involved. The SEC accesses the KC and St. Louis markets they weren't already accessing (but the Big Ten was), and they can spread their product as well. The money is the reason for all of these changes. Anyways, what good is it for A&M to fall back into a weak conference? They've got a chance to go to the elite conference in college football, why wouldn't you make the move? You'll add revenue, and believe it or not, kids will get more excited about playing SEC ball than playing a schedule consisting of Kansas, K-State, and Iowa State every year. With Texas seemingly on the verge of going independent here and the rest of the Big XII probably going to bolt west, who knows? So you think A&M which prides itself on it's football, would want to move to a conference where they KNOW outright that they have absolutely NO shot at a league championship, let alone a national championship, unless 6 of the perennial college football powerhouses all magically have :censored:ty season the exact same year, rather then staying a conference where there is a good chance that Oklahoma/Texas will knock each other out of the national championship chase and A&M can maybe sneak into a BCS bowl game. Even A&M can't possibly be that stupid, even of Rick Perry is a graduate.
