Missouri To The SEC “Inevitable And Imminent”
October 18th, 2011 01:00 AM║ Posted By: John Pennington ║ Permalink ║ Tags: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Last summer, when rumors swirled that the SEC was talking to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, many fans bemoaned the fact that the SEC might just become too tough to survive. This fall, as rumors have heated up that Missouri will fill the slot once set aside for OU, many fans are bemoaning the fact that the SEC might be adding a team that they perceive to be a cupcake.
Mike Slive just can’t win. (Aside from his bank account, of course.)
Well, it looks like those people who feel Mizzou isn’t good enough, isn’t Southern enough, or just isn’t something enough had better grab their crying towels ’cause all signs point to a Missouri-SEC marriage. Soon.
1. The New York Times reported late last night that “a university official with direct knowledge of the situation” called MU’s decision to apply for SEC membership “inevitable and imminent.” The source said that Missouri expects “no problems” when it comes to gathering enough votes to enter the league.
That likely means that Missouri will be slotted in the SEC’s East Division. Alabama — and it’s believed Tennessee — would not okay a Missouri application unless their Third Saturday in October rivalry were saved. Either Bama — and Tennessee? and others? — will be outvoted or the league has assured everyone that Mizzou will go East. Originally, it looked as though Auburn would move to the East and Missouri would stay in a more natural West alignment.
Reports from the Show-Me State have said that Missouri has no real preference in the matter, which we find surprising. It would make sense for Missouri to land in the West in order to fire up a new rivalry with Arkansas and to keep a Big 12 rivalry alive with Texas A&M… which would also allow the Tigers to continue to recruit the state of Texas heavily. The Tigers’ football success in recent years has been fueled by a Gary Pinkel-created Lonestar State pipeline. If the Tigers land in the East, they will have to recruit Florida and Georgia more often. (We assume that Arkansas would be made the Tigers’ permanent cross-divisional rival.)
Surprisingly, a quick look at the map shows that Missouri really isn’t that much farther from East Division schools than it is from those in the West.
2. Orangebloods.com – the Rivals site covering Texas — reported Monday that three sources “close to the situation” have told that site that the Tigers are ready to depart the Big 12 for the SEC. Orangebloods’ sources have said that MU may try to join the SEC for 2012-2013 rather than wait an extra year as interim Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas suggested last week.
Neinas’ comments regarding a 2013-14 departure for Mizzou were viewed by this site as nothing more than posturing. If the Tigers go, the Big 12 will try to hit them with a sizable exit fee. The best way to drive that penalty up is to claim that Missouri is somehow doing more damage to the league by leaving with such short notice. Of course, the Tigers are likely to announce their plans only about a month after Texas A&M announced their own exit. (Ironically, if Missouri announces a move on Thursday, it will have been 16 days from the time the school granted chancellor Brady Deaton the power to look around to the day MU makes an announcement of departure. A&M also took 16 days to complete that exact same route.)
If Missouri joins the SEC — and we expect it will — we believe the Tigers will do so next summer along with Texas A&M.
3. We mentioned Thursday above because The Kansas City Star reported last night that that day may be D-Day for the Tigers. Yesterday, the school’s board of curators released an agenda calling for a closed executive session at 3:35pm on Thursday.
4. On person not interested in all this expansion talk is Nick Saban. Asked Monday about the possible end of the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry, Saban didn’t hold back. ”Now we’re worrying about playing Missouri rather than Tennessee some time down the road. I could give a s— about all that, excuse my French. I mean, come on, let’s talk about (this week’s) game. What year are we talking about when we’re not gonna play Tennessee — 2025? I’m just hoping I can still go to the lake then, still walk around and go on a pontoon boat ride.”
The Birmingham News has video of the exchange right here.
Any word on if the SEC will stay at an 8 game schedule or go to 9 games with expansion? I've heard the coaches prefer to stick at 8 games, but then you would only play teams in the other division once every six years (excluding your permanent rival).
I'm a Mizzou man that has noticed a difference between conferences. Will you explain the SEC's policy on inter-conference transfers. This is a new concept for the Tigers and A&M. I asked because I know Cam Newton started at Fla. went JUCO and then to Auburn. I have also seen basketball players transfer directly from one SEC school to another. Thanks in advance
As I understand it, the SEC has a rule that a player who transfers to another SEC school has to sit out an extra year in addition to the one year required by the NCAA. The player's former school can waive the extra year at their discretion.
Some schools will waive the penalty if the player agrees to go to a school that is not on their schedule while the player is eligible. If I recall correctly, Spurrier, while coaching Florida, would waive the requirement for almost all players. A linebacker kicked off the UF team for fighting with another player at a team dinner was playing for South Carolina against Spurrier's UF team after the minimum sit out period.
Since Cam Newton went JUCO before Auburn I don't think the conference rule applied to him.
I'm sure others understand the rules better than I do so I'd be glad to defer to anyone with more knowledge about this.
M-I-Z!
Mike Slive is a genius….I have no idea why anyone would think so, but I guess if you are an SEC fan you have to repeat this over and over despite little to no tangible evidence (Mr "16 to 15" has reach for Missouri just to get to 14, signed with ESPN for twenty years for mediocre money given the ridiculous football product instead of creating an SEC network, etc.).
Have you been paying attention at all the last month?
Every SEC insider generally agrees that creating a legit SEC Network was the goal with this round of expansion, and Slive has already said publicly the SEC's football contracts provide look-in provisions to renegotiate. You really think Slive and the SEC Presidents agreed to add A&M and Mizzou just to have more mouths to feed without any financial upside? If so you are extremely naive.
SEC is about to make it rain cash.
Not going to track down the link but an ESPN Reporter (which should have some idea what clauses ESPN has in their contract with the SEC) indicated ESPN would likely just raise the overall contract amount to account for the new teams to keep all teams whole, but it would not be a big windfall ("look in" is a very general term, SEC could not force ESPN to move). My guess is that NOW, ESPN and SEC will pair up on an SEC network….but still, how much money has been left on the table the last 5 years by not doing it back then. If ESPN gets $4.40 per sub per month, in SEC country the SEC Network could have gotten $5 per sub per month.
Not saying Slive is a bad commish, but this "genius" label he gets seems way overblown. He gets credit for not totally lousing up an amazing product, but I have little to commend him for otherwise. I could be ignorant of his full list of accomplishments, so make a post of it at some point (thanks I enjoy the site, and am a UT grad as well)
Well, you have to take anything ESPN says at this point with a grain of salt. Just because they throw a few facts out there doesn't mean they are giving you the whole picture.
Secondly, if ESPN provides only enough money in the interim to cover the new additions then I don't see what's wrong with that. When the contract comes up for renegotiation then the new windfall will come. The SEC couldn't pass up the opportunity to take teams it wanted. You never know when that opportunity may present itself again. The SEC didn't decide that here and now would be the time of expansion. That situation was presented to them and all they could do was react in their best interests.
Also, 3 years ago the BTN was very new and there were a lot of questions about whether or not it would work. It wasn't profitable then. It took some time for that reality to manifest itself and so it wouldn't have been wise for Slive to commit to an economic model that no one knew would work. You always let someone else be the guinea pig if you can help it.
Wait, you think an ESPN reporter has a better understanding of the SEC's TV contracts than Mike Slive, the SEC Commissioner?
Slive just increased his conference's footprint by over 30 million residents, doubled the number of top 30 metro areas, and doubled the number of AAU schools in his conference. An SEC Network is much more viable now that the states of Texas and Missouri are in the fold as well. I think he actually made the smart decision by letting the Big Ten Network start first to see if it was feasible.
If anyone lost the genius label this summer, it is Jim Delaney. The ACC just land-locked his conference by taking the Northeast teams and the SEC's TV deal will likely top the Big Ten's when it's all said and done.
Just want to check the facts. I thought the lookin provisions were to renogiate the current contracts with ESPN and whoever else has their 3rd tier rights for the "SEC Network" in its current form which is run by cable companies that have already purchased the 3rd tier rights. In other words, this expansion won't allow them to back out of their current contracts and form their own network which the SEC runs by themselves (like the Big Ten). The Big Ten has proven that running your network yourself instead of selling third tier rights to create and "ACC Network" or "SEC Network" in name only. Again, I'm not purporting to know the facts, this is my understanding of what other people have said the facts are. If someone could post some links that would show the truth behind the look-in provisions and current clauses, that would be great. I would like to know the true facts instead of just speculating.
good stuff as always .. i will just make 1 note
Mizzou would almost 100% want to have TAMU as their cross rival if they agree to go to the east as you said recruiting in texas
would it be weird to not have ark and mizzou play, sure but mizzou would want/need the texas recruiting more.
I would expect 9 conf games (6 division, 1 cross over, 2 others/each team would play every team every 3 years and home/away every 6 years)
i would also expect that mizzou got a promise that they could return to the west if future expansion happens
Why can't we just do a north division (UT, Vandy, UK, UGA, USC, Arkansas, Mizzou) and South (UF, TA&M, LSU, MSU, OleMiss, Auburn, Bama). Find one permanent rival….etc.
LOL – I sure do like Saban. He's like the Steve Jobs of college football.
Mizzou fan on divisions here:
Does Mizzou have a preference, probably. But our bigger preference is to join a league where no single team believes that they are bigger than the league itself and acts in such a manner as to consider the league expendable.
The West makes more sense, but does one game in College Station (every other yr) really do that much towards maintaining your Texas recruiting ties. Success and coaching relationships maintain those ties. Long term, ya we'd probably rather be in West, and if SEC goes to 16 I'll bet we'll be at the front of the line offering to move if Slive would like.
In the East we see more winnable games short term. We see a more attractive basketball schedule (sorry for bringing up an irrelevant sport), and we recognize that we're the new guy and hell – we're used to being told what to do in our conference anyway! : )
Mizzou…… Boring.
It is like adding another UK to the league, but without the basketball prowess UK has.
Interesting. If the League goes to 9-game league schedule instead of the current 8, then maintaining a single, cross division rivalry remains plausible. In a 9-game leage schedule, adding Mizzou and A&M to the West while moving Auburn to the East works for everyone.
So, placing Mizzou in the East isn't the only way to get the folks at Bama & Tennessee on board.
If you move Auburn to the East and only have one cross division rival then you either lose the UT game or the Iron Bowl. That's what the discussion has been about.
Willie!T…
We've mentioned that on this site as well, but the SEC's athletic directors continue to say an 8-game schedule is the goal. And we believe them… for now. But goals change. Goals sometimes can't be hit.
We believe a 9-game schedule is likely on the way at some point.
Thanks for reading,
John
Interesting.
Has anyone considered moving Alabama & Auburn to the East, Moving Vandy to the West, and adding A&M and Mizzou in the west? Vandy would be UT's cross-division rival. Bama & Auburn would be free to pick a cross division rival since no one else in the West is really a "traditional" rival game for either.
John@Mr.SEC,
Does it make sense to send Vanderbilt to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East? The Alabama schools would still play each other and so would Tennessee and Alabama. Tennessee could have their permanent rival be Vandy. Then Mizzou could be in the West division where it's geographically aligned.
Haven't thought any further than that so don't crush me if it's dumb.
As a college football fan, I'm more interested in seeing what happens next. Was it not a surprise that the Big East, yesterday, voted to increase their exit fee to 10 million?