Blog Entry

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

Posted on: October 6, 2011 10:19 am
 
Posted by Jerry Hinnen

According to a report from the Birmingham News, Missouri may not have the support needed to join the SEC after all.

The News's Jon Solomon reported Thursday morning that the "majority" of conference presidents and ADs would support the Tigers' application to become the league's 14th team, but that that majority "falls just short of the nine votes required" to give Missouri final approval.

According to Solomon's sources, those opposed to Missouri's membership have two points of contention. The first is that the SEC can simply "do better" than the Tigers. The other is that adding a team to the SEC West rather than East would disrupt the league's scheduling and rivalries.

The debate has reportedly led to a split between Auburn and Alabama, with the Crimson Tide opposed to Missouri's application and their in-state rivals in favor. Adding Missouri would almost certainly shift Auburn to the East division, restoring the Tigers' traditional annual rivalries with Tennessee and Florida, but potentially scuttling the Tide's yearly "Third Saturday in October" grudge match with the Volunteers. (With only one annual "cross-division" game on the schedule, Alabama couldn't play both Tennessee and Auburn with both in the East, at least not without a nine-game conference schedule.)

As noted by Solomon, Missouri's application won't be helped by an anonymous official telling the Associated Press Wednesday that the SEC would be the Tigers' second choice after the Big Ten. The public admission that Missouri might look elsewhere if the Big Ten asked them to surely won't sit well with a league that -- surely -- can find other partners that would be 100 percent committed.

So a move that looked like all but certain when the Mizzou Board of Curators voted to explore their options Tuesday now has another clear, visible hurdle in front of it. (At minimum, the SEC's plans for a 13-team 2012 season look that much closer to being set in stone.) The guess here remains that in the end, the allure of Missouri's Kansas City/St. Louis television markets will be too much for Mike Slive and the SEC to ignore (especially with the league angling for a new TV contract), and that the SEC's stability and overflowing coffers will be too much for even the Big Ten-focused Missouri officials to turn down.

But at the very least, Mizzou-to-the-SEC appears to be a deal that isn't done just yet.

Keep up with the latest college football news from around the country. From the regular season all the way through the bowl games, CBSSports.com has you covered with this daily newsletter. | Preview


Comments

Since: Jul 15, 2011
Posted on: October 6, 2011 4:14 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

Fair enough.  We'll just disagree about whether the Big 8 expanding to the Big 12 in response to the Pac 8 becoming the Pac 10 was for "competitive purposes" or "greed."




Since: Jan 29, 2007
Posted on: October 6, 2011 4:12 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

Now that is a funny comment by freakinpaullee!!!!



Since: Feb 5, 2009
Posted on: October 6, 2011 4:09 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

Missouri in the SOUTHEASTERN Conference ?  What on Earth for ?  It already has a Kentucky and a Vandy.   They'll wait for Florida State or maybe Clemson to join.  All others need not apply.



Since: Jan 29, 2007
Posted on: October 6, 2011 4:07 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

I don't condone the way Mizzou is handling this at all.  Nor did I think it was right the way they publicly voted with Texas in the Big 12 year after year and let this happen to the Big 12 at the same time they were quietly begging the B1G to accept them as their 12th member the last 2 years.  I will agree with you on that point...



Since: Jul 15, 2011
Posted on: October 6, 2011 4:01 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

Thanks for the history lesson, edden.  I can certainly respect a school(s) wanting to remain competitive, but that equates to money.  While I don't think that Nebraska would have done what Mizzou is doing had the B1G selected them (because Neb was one of the cornerstones of the B12), the fact remains that the Jayhawks, Wildcats, and Cyclones are not engaging such tactics.  You may condone Mizzou's actions, but I (and others) find it repulsive.



Since: Aug 9, 2010
Posted on: October 6, 2011 3:46 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

Most commentators still don't get it.  The SEC will not be asking Missouri to join.  It isn't only Alabama who is opposed.  Only Arkansas and Auburn have publically announced that they are for the inclusion of Missouri.  It takes nine votes.  Having an "Official Vote" doens't matter.  As with Texas A&M, polling is done prior to putting a vote on the table.  If there are not enough votes to carry, the team is never officially proposed or brought to a vote.  It may eventually happen after much negotiation, but again, the outcome will be known prior to the SEC Presidents/Chancellors "officially" voiting on it. 

The SEC will play unbalanced for one or two years if need be.

Since everyone is predicting, here goes:

SEC
SEC will wait until an ACC team contacts them.  Could be Florida State (Only Florida would definitely oppose), could be VA Tech (Virginia politicians may not allow), or NC State.  All can afford the 20m buy-out that they will make back in two years.

ACC
IF the ACC loses a team, UConn is an easy invite.  Rutgers may be left on the outside, unless the ACC can then attract Notre Dame. Rutgers best chance is an invite before the conference loses a team.

Big East
As it stands today, the Big East no more deserves a BCS automatic bid, than the Mountain West.  I didn't think they deserved to keep it when VA Tech/Miami/BC left.  Now losing Pitt/Cuse, not getting TCU, and probably losing UConn, they are left with ONE consistent football program, WVU.   They will survive as a conference with their basketball members, but in football, will look more like Conference USA than the Big East.   

Big12
Missouri stays put for now and the Big 12 adds two more.  I still don't buy Louisville, West Virginia, or Cincinnati.  Yes WVU is the best available football program and that's the only selling point.  TV market?  No.  Academics?  No.  Geography?  No.  The interim Big 12 commissioner has said that geography was an important consideration.  My bet is BYU and Houston.  Both better TV markets than the aforementioned Big East programs.  There may be some push back to adding another Texas team.        

One side note:  It is unfortunate that Colorado State didn't build upon momentum they had in the, I believe late 90s.  They could have at least been in the conversation to have been invited to the Pac12, or be considered to put the Big12 back in Colorado.  If I was a CSU Alum I would be furious.    

Big TEN
When the Pac12 stood pat that took any pressure off of Delaney.  Sure they would grow if Notre Dame would join, and then ask Missouri or Rutgers, both who would rather be Big TEN members, than go anywhere else.  Maybe one day if they give up on ND, yet again, they invite Missouri/Kansas.  It wouldn't bring much to their football stature, but it would solidify the St Louis and Kansas City markets and keep them up with ACC Basketball. 

Pac12
Who knows what schools out west rise in stature?



Since: Sep 7, 2011
Posted on: October 6, 2011 3:42 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

The reporter in question tried polling the members as they were leaving and some of the replies were, not enough votes .



Since: Jan 29, 2007
Posted on: October 6, 2011 3:42 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

SWIHawk

The next point would be the Big 8 did not expand due to greed.  Again, you are just making comments based on the reasons of some of the instability of the conferences today is greed.  In the early 90's, 5 conferences expanded to create larger conferences across the country with the majority following the model of the PAC-10 which went to 10 teams in 1978. 

In 1991 the following happened

SEC went from 10 to 12
Big East Formed a 8 team football conference
ACC went to 10 teams

In 1993 the Big 10 added Penn St and went to 11

In 1996 the WAC went to 16 teams.

When the SWC fell apart, The Big 8 moved in to create a larger conference more for the purpose of survival than anything else.  Money was a part of it but a small part.  It was more to stay competitive and remain a leading conference in the country after falling behind to the moves that had taken place earlier in the decade.

Maybe you weren't old enough to have known about the actual happenings during the early 90's in conference realignment.   



Since: Aug 13, 2011
Posted on: October 6, 2011 3:38 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

anonymous sources, smear campaigns, and misinformation.  This all points to the big 12.

Fact: texas hired PR firm to stop A&M from going to the SEC. (Hillco Partners)
Fact: Shortly after hired PR Firm, stories like these were being released(anonymous sources of course), politicians demanding action be taken to stop A&M from leaving Texas(Rep. Dan Branch), business reports released saying if A&M leaves the big 12 it will be bad for Texas Economy, and threats of lawsuits.

Non-Fact: SEC had a vote to allow Mizzou in

Fact: Anytime the SEC has a vote to add another school it is made Public Knowledge that a vote on entrance of another school will take place.  No such information was given to the Public about a vote to add Mizzou.
Fact: Anytime a vote is had on adding a school, the results are PRIVATE.   Any schools individual voting record is not, i repeat NOT released to the public.
Fact:  The meeting the SEC had yesterday was about scheduling our 13 team conference next year and no such topic was on the board for adding Mizzou.

So keep trusting your anonymous sources from reporters trying to save their jobs.



Since: Nov 7, 2010
Posted on: October 6, 2011 3:38 pm
 

Report: Not enough SEC votes to add Missouri yet

The problem that I see in some of these invitations from conferences and many the comments on these boards is that they are focused on short term success (e.g. TCU) instead of looking at the overall body of work throughout the years. While one can say that schools like Alabama, USC, Michigan, Ohio State etc are safe bets, most of these schools are already in a conference. TCU has been strong lately but what will happen once their coach is gone? 



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com