re: Any new grumblings on conference expansion ?

quote:

---

Since Utah was the other PAC add, not like it affected the Big 12 or Big 10. So at that point you have a stable PAC 12, a stable B1G 12, a stable Big 12, a stable SEC, and a stable ACC. Nebraska was the only brand name that moved in realignment and the only other brand coveted by the B1G - who started realignment in the 90's and in 2009 - was Notre Dame so what pushes any conference to go past 12? Look at the Big 12 before Nebraska left 12 schools, #2 football (3 solid brand names in football - Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska), Kansas in basketball, and 7 AAU schools. It is not like Colorado was a brand name in football or basketball and even with both gone you still had 5 AAU schools. Adding Louisville and West Virginia did no academic favors, but at least UL brought value in basketball and WVU brought value in football. With those two keeping it at 12, you do not have to add TCU and adding solid schools in the North probably keeps Mizzou in the fold after they got left at the altar by the B1G. Mizzou could form a voting block of non TX and OK schools (MU, UL, WVU, KSU, FU, ISU) = 6 votes and that is enough to stall the folks in austin a norman from have monopoly power.

---

This is all fine and dandy but as long as one school was calling the shots we were going to do everything we could to leave. The voting block might seem like a possibility but I don't think that's how things really worked. This was the Big 12, not the SEC. Even so, Texas could always hold the possibility of leaving and taking other schools with them over the ISUs and KSUs.

It was mutually beneficial financially for the SEC to take us and for us to leave, it reopened the negotiating rights for TV and strengthened the footprint for an SEC Network. We stood to make much more money. So did Mizzou. So did the SEC. Adding Louisville would have made the Big 12 better but it wouldn't have stopped us from leaving nor Mizzou