The Conference Realignment Vigil- Update: Terps to Big10?

[Duvall]

Duvall -- it's not really the Mizzou/KU rivalry that will hurt the KC economy. It's the loss of the Big XII basketball tourney which will almost assuredly move to a Dallas/OKC rotation.

It doesn't make sense to have the tourney in KC anymore if Mizzou leaves.

Well, it makes as much sense as any other location. But annual MU/KU games in football and basketball would *also* put money into the KC economy. Why is it Missouri's fault if the Big XII tournament never returns to KC, but not KU's fault for refusing to schedule sold-out games against Missouri each year?

[A-Tex Devil]

Well, it makes as much sense as any other location. But annual MU/KU games in football and basketball would *also* put money into the KC economy. Why is it Missouri's fault if the Big XII tournament never returns to KC, but not KU's fault for refusing to schedule sold-out games against Missouri each year?

Simple. Mizzou left. It's the same as with Texas/Texas A&M. Mizzou gains a ton by continuing the rivalry -- they keep their recruiting presence in Kansas City in football and basketball. KU doesn't really gain anything. Kansas City will unfortunately bear the brunt of this, but KU is not the one leaving the conference. KU and Mizzou are getting a divorce, and Mizzou is asking to KU to spend weekends at the beach house several times a year together... you know... for the kids. Cake, eating it as well, etc.

Turned another way, if prior to the increased exit fee and additional expansion, do you think NC State would have accepted an SEC invitation had they gotten one? In the unlikely event that it did, and they left, do you think UNC is going to continue that rivalry? Should they?

I think you might see the Big XII keep KC on the rotation. Maybe. I kinda hope they do, because the arena in KC is the second best tourney atmosphere after the Big East since the ACC expanded.

[ForkFondler]

A preseason Big 8 tournament in KC would be epic.

[Duvall]

Simple. Mizzou left. It's the same as with Texas/Texas A&M. Mizzou gains a ton by continuing the rivalry -- they keep their recruiting presence in Kansas City in football and basketball. KU doesn't really gain anything. Kansas City will unfortunately bear the brunt of this, but KU is not the one leaving the conference. KU and Mizzou are getting a divorce, and Mizzou is asking to KU to spend weekends at the beach house several times a year together... you know... for the kids. Cake, eating it as well, etc.

But it's not a divorce, it's a sports association. Each university has a responsibility to do what is best for the school, its students and its fans. How would any of those groups be helped by ending the KU-MU rivalry?

And it's not like the Big XII is a normal state of affairs. As long as Texas has the ability to effectively dissolve the league unilaterally, any Big XII school with an offer from another conference pretty much has to take that offer.

Turned another way, if prior to the increased exit fee and additional expansion, do you think NC State would have accepted an SEC invitation had they gotten one? In the unlikely event that it did, and they left, do you think UNC is going to continue that rivalry? Should they?

NC State wouldn't accept an SEC offer unless the ACC were on the verge of constantly falling apart like the Big XII. But if they did, UNC should absolutely continue the series.

We don't need a hypothetical situation. South Carolina left the ACC to become an independent, and eventually joined the SEC. Clemson continued to play them in football each season, without even pausing for even a season. Today, both schools and their fans value that rivalry and consider it one of the high points of their respective programs. I would hope that other schools would do the same.

[A-Tex Devil]

But it's not a divorce, it's a sports association. Each university has a responsibility to do what is best for the school, its students and its fans. How would any of those groups be helped by ending the KU-MU rivalry?

And it's not like the Big XII is a normal state of affairs. As long as Texas has the ability to effectively dissolve the league unilaterally, any Big XII school with an offer from another conference pretty much has to take that offer.



NC State wouldn't accept an SEC offer unless the ACC were on the verge of constantly falling apart like the Big XII. But if they did, UNC should absolutely continue the series.

We don't need a hypothetical situation. South Carolina left the ACC to become an independent, and eventually joined the SEC. Clemson continued to play them in football each season, without even pausing for even a season. Today, both schools and their fans value that rivalry and consider it one of the high points of their respective programs. I would hope that other schools would do the same.

First -- I'll preface that every team that has left the Big XII has had great, perfectly sound, internal - and different - reasons to do so. But the South Carolina analogy is inapt. When they left, no one considered the ACC weaker, or on the brink of falling apart when they did, right? Right.

So let's take this from KU's point of view (and I'll defer all of the below to TexHawk, or any KU fan, if I am overstating any of this). I, KU, am sitting in a conference that is teetering. The big dog, Texas, while surveying his options, which understandably might make people jittery, has continued to state by its words and actions that the Big XII is the place it wants to be. The second big dog, OU, by its words, but not necessarily all of its actions, has done the same. Regardless, I know that if the conference falls apart, I am in a precarious situation because the money-driver, football, is not a strength. I might lose at musical chairs and end up outside the BCS box, or worse, the Big East.

Now we think we have a deal. Nine teams, add a tenth, and we are good. Mizzou decides, for perfectly understandable internal reasons, mostly related to stability, to beg out of the conference and head to the SEC. On the way out, they say, "but we'd love to continue our rivalry with KU." Really? You are going to put our conference on the brink again -- at the very least with its TV partners -- and I'm supposed to bow to your whims here?

Mizzou leaving (1) dimnishes the chances that any BIg XII championships in any sports will remain in KC (except on rare occasions), a great college sports town in the same way Indianapolis is, since only 2 remaining schools are really close by and (2) puts KU's TV money at risk in the event Fox or ESPN doesn't think they are getting what they paid for when they signed the deals they did in the past 12 months. It gives Texas, perhaps, immediate incentive to take another look at leaving (I don't think this will happen, but it's certainly a possible effect). Mizzou leaving the conference screws, and potentially screws, KU in so many ways, I get why they are upset.

And KU should suck it up and continue to play Mizzou? Allow them to continue to have recruiting inroads in Kansas City and Kansas? Why does Mizzou deserve that? I mean, good on you for having the opportunity to go to the SEC, but this is a little much.

I get why all of these schools are switching conferences. But if they are doing so with the idea that their traditional rivals are going to bow to their whims, after being damaged by the departure, and continue the rivalry, it's not just naive, it's stupidly arrogant or arrogantly stupid. Take your pick.

[El_Diablo]

Texas . . . has continued to state by its . . . actions that the Big XII is the place it wants to be.

Is this a joke?

[A-Tex Devil]

Is this a joke?

Show me where otherwise? They've weighed their options, but this year and last year, the Big XII has been their first choice.

.. and I'll add, I dont' agree with it. I wish Texas would have gone to the Pac 12 last year. This year now that LHN is in place, not so much. But last year I was VERY disappointed that Texas/OU/A&M decided to save the Big XII.

[uh_no]

Show me where otherwise? They've weighed their options, but this year and last year, the Big XII has been their first choice.

Only after they exhausted all other options.

[El_Diablo]

Show me where otherwise?

I still can't tell if you're joking or not, but in case you're being serious, I guess I'll address it by pointing you to your next sentence:

They've weighed their options

By "weigh[ing] their options," are you referring to having their board of regents grant permission to explore a conference switch, meeting with (at least) the PAC-12 and ACC to negotiate membership in their conferences, and only deciding to stay put after all the doors were slammed shut in their face over revenue sharing? Are those not actions? Are they not basically the same actions that Missouri is now taking (the only difference being that the SEC may say yes to Missouri whereas the PAC-12 said no to Texas)?

I don't read all the Texas message boards, so I am sure I am missing some of the spin, but I don't see how Texas has remained at all times committed to the Big 12 throughout this process.

[A-Tex Devil]

I still can't tell if you're joking or not, but in case you're being serious, I guess I'll address it by pointing you to your next sentence:



By "weigh[ing] their options," are you referring to having their board of regents grant permission to explore a conference switch, meeting with (at least) the PAC-12 and ACC to negotiate membership in their conferences, and only deciding to stay put after all the doors were slammed shut in their face over revenue sharing? Are those not actions? Are they not basically the same actions that Missouri is now taking (the only difference being that the SEC may say yes to Missouri whereas the PAC-12 said no to Texas)?

I don't read all the Texas message boards, so I am sure I am missing some of the spin, but I don't see how Texas has remained at all times committed to the Big 12 throughout this process.

Actually, unlike OU, A&M, Mizzou, etc., the Texas President was given authority by the Board of Regents to discuss with other conferences, but he was not given the freedom, like the other school presidents were, to make any decision to move without coming back to the regents. Texas didn't WANT to go anywhere this year. They would if they had to (i.e. if Pac 12 would have taken OU without them, but Pac 12 made it clear they didn't want OU without UT). Last year was a diferent story. Texas was on its way to the Pac 12. But it didn't want to split with A&M last year. A&M played a strong card well a year ago, and Texas, A&M and others agreed to keep the BIg XII going.

And, I don't deny that Texas has definitely looked around. It would be irresponsible not to. But Texas' administration (to the dismay of a lot of its alumni) has continued to have the Big XII as its first choice.

[SCMatt33]

I think everyone looks at these moves the wrong way. Are they about getting more money from a different conference, absolutely. But aside from Texas, OU, and their sidekicks, no one in the Big XII or Big East is guaranteed a spot in a viable BCS auto-bid conference. Certainly Texas and OU (who's role should not be underestimated) have done absolutely nothing wrong in exploring their options. After all, we live in a country that actively encourages looking out for #1. Why shouldn't this extend to conference affiliation for universities. "Exploring" their options however, has definite ramifications. I would submit that a large part of the motivation for the moves of every BCS team so far (save Texas A&M, whose primary motive seems to be spite), has come from the assurance of a soft landing should Texas and OU make a different decision next time around. With the fact that they moved pretty far along in the process, other schools certainly can't be blamed if they assume that the decision of Texas and OU might be different the next time around, whether that occurs next year or 10 years down the road.

Now you might be thinking, wait a minute, that makes perfect sense for a school like Colorado, but I don't think that Nebraska, Syracuse, or Pittsburgh (not to mention Mizzou) would have been left out in any realignment scenario. That may be true if we assume a 64 team model, which looks nice for Media types because it indicates a conspiracy among the conferences to leave out little guys and sets us up nicely for a playoff system. That does not guarantee it would happen. The Big Ten has been very clear that they are happy with 12 right now, and I have no reason not to believe them. They enjoy being the almighty conference, priding themselves on their off the field reputation, their exclusivity, and their academic tradition. Whose to say that when other conferences start going to 16, they won't stay at 12 for the sake of being different, and in their minds, better. You can never tell what a conference that stayed at 11 members for nearly two decades and held up the creation of a true national title game because the "grandaddy of all bowls" was too sacred a tradition might do. When have the top conferences ever all had the same numbers anyway...never. Lets look at the SEC next. They will likely go to 14, because they aren't as crazy as the Big Ten, but what if the ACC's moves have satisfied the schools that everyone thought would jump. They might decide that 14 is enough because they are most proud of their on field dominance, and might think that the remaining choices dilute that too much. If that's the case, doesn't Mizzou have to at least explore jumping before someone else takes that spot. They were already turned down by the Big Ten once. If the chance to guarantee a spot in a stronger conference presents itself, you can't blame them for taking it.

It's been a giant game of Chicken for everyone. Texas certainly went farther than most to start, but it's been the others that have flinched first. I feel like its one of those things where everyone's to blame yet no one is all at the same time.

[A-Tex Devil]

Good post SCMatt.

Apologies, everyone, for the "words and actions" statement. It overstated what I meant, and certainly, on its face, is not true. It does reflect, however, the feelings of a lot of UT alumni who would like to see Texas leave the Big XII -- that Texas has no intention of ever leaving the Big XII if it doesn't have to ("Have to," of course, meaning OU gets an invite and jets).

Anyway, back on (sub)topic... I'm still interested to hear why KU owes Mizzou a non-interrupted continuation of the rivalry, considering that Mizzou is making KU's life more complicated right now. I am sure it would likely be renewed in a many years, but it seems awfully greedy for teams to leave conferences in a lurch then blame their rivals when their rivals don't do them the *favor* of continuing to play them. I am interested in how KU's fans feel. I bet it is overwhelmingly against continuing the rivalry in the near term.

[Stray Gator]

Good post SCMatt.

Apologies, everyone, for the "words and actions" statement. It overstated what I meant, and certainly, on its face, is not true. It does reflect, however, the feelings of a lot of UT alumni who would like to see Texas leave the Big XII -- that Texas has no intention of ever leaving the Big XII if it doesn't have to ("Have to," of course, meaning OU gets an invite and jets).

Anyway, back on (sub)topic... I'm still interested to hear why KU owes Mizzou a non-interrupted continuation of the rivalry, considering that Mizzou is making KU's life more complicated right now. I am sure it would likely be renewed in a many years, but it seems awfully greedy for teams to leave conferences in a lurch then blame their rivals when their rivals don't do them the *favor* of continuing to play them. I am interested in how KU's fans feel. I bet it is overwhelmingly against continuing the rivalry in the near term.

I don't see it as a question of whether Kansas "owes" it to Missouri to continue the rivalry--the essence of a rivalry, IMO, is that the players and fans on both sides care passionately about the games. Rivalries based on geographical proximity are particularly heated because the players and fans often know and interact regularly with one another--sometimes even as family members or close friends. No other games will make them feel so vividly the ecstasy of victory or the agony of defeat; as a result, no other games are so anticipated and generate so much excitement (and apprehension). In that sense, refusing to continue the rivalry punishes the players and fans of both schools equally. And because rivalry games tend to stimulate the sale of more tickets and merchandise, both schools will likely suffer a loss of revenue. So while I could understand Kansas declining to continue playing Missouri out of resentment, I think it would be the proverbial case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[TexHawk]

Well, it makes as much sense as any other location. But annual MU/KU games in football and basketball would *also* put money into the KC economy. Why is it Missouri's fault if the Big XII tournament never returns to KC, but not KU's fault for refusing to schedule sold-out games against Missouri each year?

Don't get me wrong, an annual KU/MU basketball** game at the Sprint Center would put *some* money into the KC economy, but my guess is 99% of those attending would already live in KC. Bye bye hotel revenue. The bars/restaurants and surrounding areas would get a bump from one day. All of that would be dwarfed by what the Big12 tourney brings. (A ton of outsiders from big schools visiting the city, 11 total games, media exposure, 4 days of revenue for local businesses, etc.) You may laugh when I say this, but Iowa State fans come down to KC in droves, no matter how good or bad their team is.


Per the other stuff... The KU AD is not a money making machine. A boatload of the entire AD budget comes from basketball revenue. This largely forces the program to schedule as many homes games as possible, and only taking road games with top-level competition that will guarantee good TV money. Recent home-and-homes with Ohio State, Kentucky, for example.

Scheduling Mizzou in basketball gives KU nothing, and opens up KC for Mizzou to recruit. Unless they agree to an 80-20 revenue split, which ain't happenin.


** Also, the football game is at Arrowhead, which is miles and miles from any bars/hotels/restaurants. The economy doesn't get a huge bump with Mizzou IN the Big12.

[OldPhiKap]

But the South Carolina analogy is inapt. When they left, no one considered the ACC weaker, or on the brink of falling apart when they did, right? Right.

There was a LOT of bad blood about USC's decision at the time. The only team that really scheduled the Gamecocks on any sort of regular basis after that was Clemson, and that has more to do with the fact that those are the only two major football programs in the Palmetto State. And amongst my many USC friends, beating Clemson is more important than beating Georgia or anyone else.

With Mizzou, I don't think the issue is the state of the conference if/when they leave. It is that they abandoned ship for greener pastures, and the remaining jiltees don't like it. (Please excuse all mixed metaphors and nonwords in that last sentence).

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't see it as a question of whether Kansas "owes" it to Missouri to continue the rivalry--the essence of a rivalry, IMO, is that the players and fans on both sides care passionately about the games. Rivalries based on geographical proximity are particularly heated because the players and fans often know and interact regularly with one another--sometimes even as family members or close friends. No other games will make them feel so vividly the ecstasy of victory or the agony of defeat; as a result, no other games are so anticipated and generate so much excitement (and apprehension). In that sense, refusing to continue the rivalry punishes the players and fans of both schools equally. And because rivalry games tend to stimulate the sale of more tickets and merchandise, both schools will likely suffer a loss of revenue. So while I could understand Kansas declining to continue playing Missouri out of resentment, I think it would be the proverbial case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

I tend to agree that if the fans want to continue it, the rivalry should continue (if OU and Texas split, I think that game would probably continue in some form). But in the Texas/Texas A&M case, continuing the rivalry essentially rewards A&M for leaving the conference to the deteriment of the other members of the Big XII, gives A&M another game in Texas every year, and basically rewards the Aggies for severely damaging the Big XII. A&M had many good reasons to go to the SEC, but, frankly, A&M (and Mizzou) don't deserve the continuation of the rivalry until Texas and KU, respectively, are ready to do so.

I can tell you that Texas fans probably 4 to 1 don't want to play A&M after this year. The players really don't care. They just want to win football games. I imagine it's a little less extreme for KU/Mizzou because it is KU's main rival (where A&M has always been a secondary rival in football for Texas. Think of Texas/A&M/OU like Michigan/Michigan St./Ohio St. It's the same dynamic). From a Texas perspective (with unneeded full disclosure that it's a one-sided perspective) the Aggies have misbehaved and shifted blame on their way out rather than just saying they got a better deal and went on their way. This linked analogy (it's short and to the point), I think, perfectly illustrates how Texas, rightly or wrongly, views A&M's request to continue the game.

[OldPhiKap]

There was a LOT of bad blood about USC's decision at the time. The only team that really scheduled the Gamecocks on any sort of regular basis after that was Clemson, and that has more to do with the fact that those are the only two major football programs in the Palmetto State. And amongst my many USC friends, beating Clemson is more important than beating Georgia or anyone else.

With Mizzou, I don't think the issue is the state of the conference if/when they leave. It is that they abandoned ship for greener pastures, and the remaining jiltees don't like it. (Please excuse all mixed metaphors and nonwords in that last sentence).

Also true with UGa and GTech after the Jackets left the SEC.

[Class of '94]

Check this out: http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.c...70202/32854353.

It seems like they would have to work out a lot of issues to get this done; but if the 3 conferences did merge together in football, I would have to think they would get at least 1 to 2 AQs; and it might even put some additional pressure on ND to join a conference. I also wonder how the power conferences like the SEC would view this type of scenario and respond to it.

[rthomas]

Maybe Duke should join the Big East's All-Catholic Basketball-only league.

[SCMatt33]

Check this out: http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.c...70202/32854353.

It seems like they would have to work out a lot of issues to get this done; but if the 3 conferences did merge together in football, I would have to think they would get at least 1 to 2 AQs; and it might even put some additional pressure on ND to join a conference. I also wonder how the power conferences like the SEC would view this type of scenario and respond to it.

I don't see this happening. First, according to the current rules, a conference can only have 1 auto bid, no matter how big it is. Second, while there are definite criteria for a new conference to earn auto bid status, there is no process for stripping one of its AQ status. This could lead to a big legal mess if the Big East on it's own is stripped of this status. The rules could change entirely after the contract ends in 2013, so who knows what would happen then, but I can't see the Big East accepting this before they find out that new rules would work against them. Third, a conference like this would need the NCAA to change some of its rules to work as well. Right now, NCAA (not BCS) rules, dictate that the maximum number of games in a year is 12. Conference title games are given an exemption to this rule, but only if the conference meets certain criteria. Most people are aware that one of them is having at least 12 members. The other, though, is that the conference must be split into two divisions each of which play a full round robin. Unless the BE/MW/CUSA could drum up enough support for an NCAA rule change, that conference would not be allowed to hold any conference championship event. It's certainly an interesting idea, but I doubt it would ever be feasible.