The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Jacob]

The one thing that puzzles me in all of this is the legal aspect. If aTm was held hostage by a threat of lawsuit, why wouldn't Mizzou be subjected to the same? If the schools have not signed their TV rights away yet, then the conference is still at risk of implosion. all of the financial commitments made while relying on statements made last summer by aTm and Mizzou would still be potential damages, no?

Because the legal threat was always a bluff
aTm always knew what their exit fee was because the conference told them. Missouri is in a similar position. But this time, it looks like the SEC may not need to worry because the B12 is going to survive anyway.

[Paperback Writer]

But if Mizzou goes to the SEC then the aggies will have someone they can beat so they won't be always sitting at the bottom of the division. Oh wait, maybe not...

http://www.big12sports.com/standings...bml?SPID=13139

I was at the Texas A&M - Missouri game last season in College Station. The Aggies were not happy as it was a thrid straight loss. But to their credit, the Aggies went on to win 6 straight.

[Paperback Writer]

David Ubben on why Missouri should stay in the Big 12...

Missouri, as it stands, is built to sustain this success. Before the four Southwest Conference schools merged with the Big 8, Missouri struggled through 12 consecutive losing seasons and the program played in two bowl games from 1984-2002.

Since Pinkel established those recruiting inroads in a conference with four Texas schools and three Texas bowl tie-ins of varying prestige, he's been to the postseason in seven of eight seasons, including four berths in bowls played in Texas.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_...-in-the-big-12

One always has to watch when a select set of data points are taken. For example, Mizzou's record from 1984-2002. Why was 1984 selected as a start point? The reason is because Mizzou was decent from 1978-83. The Tigers went to Bowl games in five of those six years under HC Warren Powers. It just shows that coaching is as important as recruiting, perhaps more so.

But Ubben is correct to point out that Pinkel is winning and Missouri has gone bowling seven of the past eight seasons. In the Big 12, Missouri is probably more dependent on Texas recruiting than any other former Big 12 North program. They compete with Tech, Texas A&M, and Okie St. after Texas and OU make their offers. With only the possibility of playing Texas A&M in the SEC, Mizzou may have difficulty signing Texas recruits. Nebraska has a similar challenge but Nebraska has recruited California and Florida and nationally for decades and I'm not sure Missouri has done the same.

Reduce Texas recruits and Mizzou is in a world of hurt very fast. Here's the make up the current Missouri Roster:

All other states have two or fewer on the Missouri roster. Pinkel has got to be crapping bricks with all the support of playing SEC football from the governor on down. They will have a hard enough time playing SEC teams with Texas recruits. Take many of those away, Missouri doesn't go bowling and Pinkel is out of a job.

[TripletDaddy]

Why can't Mizzou supplement Texas recruits with Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana recruits?

[Omaha 680]

Why can't Mizzou supplement Texas recruits with Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana recruits?

How come Arkansas couldn't do that with any real results after they made the move over?

[Moliere]

Why can't Mizzou supplement Texas recruits with Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana recruits?

Texas is a different animal than all other states. Football is a religion here. Kids are playing in full pads from about 8 years old on up. The system is incredible and even pee wee games are intense.

I liken it to soccer and the difference between the South America countries and the USA. The athleticness of the people might be on par with each other, but it's the system that separates the two. Sure other southern states do well with thei youth football, but it's not the same. You'll find top football players anywhere, but there are just so many in Texas that are decent (not top but D1 caliber), thanks to the system, that you can't ignore it and get by.

[Scorcho]

Why can't Mizzou supplement Texas recruits with Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana recruits?

assuming Missouri will be in the same division as aTm, in the SEC West, then Missouri still has a prescence in Texas and would still play there every other year.

Maybe Missouri loses a little bit of their Lone Star State recruiting base, but I'd argue that it wouldn't drop off significantly.

[TripletDaddy]

How come Arkansas couldn't do that with any real results after they made the move over?

What do you mean by real results? If you mean going to bowls but not much else, then they are getting the same results as Mizzou. What sort of drop off is Mizzou going to experience by switching from Texas recruits to the other states I mentioned? Mizzou is never in the title conversation, they are just a solid team most seasons. Sounds a lot like Arkansas.

[Uncle Ted]

Texas is a different animal than all other states. Football is a religion here. Kids are playing in full pads from about 8 years old on up. The system is incredible and even pee wee games are intense.

I liken it to soccer and the difference between the South America countries and the USA. The athleticness of the people might be on par with each other, but it's the system that separates the two. Sure other southern states do well with thei youth football, but it's not the same. You'll find top football players anywhere, but there are just so many in Texas that are decent (not top but D1 caliber), thanks to the system, that you can't ignore it and get by.

NFL Hall of Fame Members' Birthplace by State

[TripletDaddy]

Texas is a different animal than all other states. Football is a religion here. Kids are playing in full pads from about 8 years old on up. The system is incredible and even pee wee games are intense.

I liken it to soccer and the difference between the South America countries and the USA. The athleticness of the people might be on par with each other, but it's the system that separates the two. Sure other southern states do well with thei youth football, but it's not the same. You'll find top football players anywhere, but there are just so many in Texas that are decent (not top but D1 caliber), thanks to the system, that you can't ignore it and get by.

You can't ignore it and get by? I give thee an oh, brother.

How many national championships has the state of Texas produced over say the past 30 years?

One.

I think these SEC schools are doing just fine getting by with their "inferior" talent.

ps "athleticism"

[Omaha 680]

What do you mean by real results? If you mean going to bowls but not much else, then they are getting the same results as Mizzou. What sort of drop off is Mizzou going to experience by switching from Texas recruits to the other states I mentioned? Mizzou is never in the title conversation, they are just a solid team most seasons. Sounds a lot like Arkansas.

Arkansas hasn't been a consistently solid team most seasons since they moved over. They've only produced three 9-win seasons, two 10-win seasons, zero conference championships and only two appearances in the CCG. They also have seven losing seasons. You can chalk it up to an increase in the level of competition or difficulty in recruiting or a combination of both, but Arkansas took a big step down in relevance when they joined the SEC and Missouri would do the same.

But Arkansas is very happy where they're at, so what do I know?

[Paperback Writer]

What do you mean by real results? If you mean going to bowls but not much else, then they are getting the same results as Mizzou. What sort of drop off is Mizzou going to experience by switching from Texas recruits to the other states I mentioned? Mizzou is never in the title conversation, they are just a solid team most seasons. Sounds a lot like Arkansas.

Compare Arkansas results in the SWC and their results in the SEC. Arkansas was a conference power in the SWC and on par with Texas back then. With the change to the SEC, Arkansas was not able to recruit as strongly in Texas. But one also has to take into account the quality of head coaches and the associated success. Missouri played in the Big 12 CCG in 2007 and 2008 and I doubt the Mizzou plays in a SEC CCG anytime soon.

As far as recruiting, it takes time to establish recruiting ties to high schools in states like Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi (and Georgia). And it might be tough for Pinkel to get a recruit to play out of state for Mizzou. In Texas, there is an established football tradition (like other states) but there is a greater quantity of talent. They all can't play for Texas, A&M, and OU so it's not uncommon for talented players to go out of state. It's easier to sign these players when playing in the same conference as Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma. Also, there's not near the amount of talent in Louisiana and Mississippi as Texas. Florida is about equal but there's Florida, FSU, Miami, and much of the Big Ten to compete with. And as I mentioned before, it will take some time to establish relationships with high school coaches. It is easier for a school like Nebraska to make a conference change away from Texas because the Huskers have long had a presence in Florida and other states and have always recruited California (another state in the same league as Texas and Florida).

[TripletDaddy]

Arkansas hasn't been a consistently solid team most seasons since they moved over. They've only produced three 9-win seasons, two 10-win seasons, zero conference championships and only two appearances in the CCG. They also have seven losing seasons. You can chalk it up to an increase in the level of competition or difficulty in recruiting or a combination of both, but Arkansas took a big step down in relevance when they joined the SEC and Missouri would do the same.

But Arkansas is very happy where they're at, so what do I know?

Do you think aTM will have a tough time in the SEC? Will it fare as well as in the B12? aTm has all the access to Texas recruits that it wants. I don't see how your position is tenable.

[Omaha 680]

Do you think aTM will have a tough time in the SEC? Will it fare as well as in the B12? aTm has all the access to Texas recruits that it wants. I don't see how your position is tenable.

aTm is a bit of a different animal. Many have speculated that they will still get the same recruits they get now or better because now they can sell the kids on playing half their games in Texas close to family and friends, but also playing against elite SEC competition. I don't know that it will pan out that way, but it's an interesting thought. As far as them taking a step down, other than their one conference championship in 1998, you could argue Missouri has been more successful than aTm in the Big 12 anyway...so maybe losing more doesn't matter to aTm.

[Uncle Ted]

aTm is a bit of a different animal. Many have speculated that they will still get the same recruits they get now or better because now they can sell the kids on playing half their games in Texas close to family and friends, but also playing against elite SEC competition. I don't know that it will pan out that way, but it's an interesting thought. As far as them taking a step down, other than their one conference championship in 1998, you could argue Missouri has been more successful than aTm in the Big 12 anyway...so maybe losing more doesn't matter to aTm.

It seems that the Texas HS coaches are not on board with the move...

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/re...hes-frown-move

Texas HS coaches down on A&M's move
Losing tradition a primary reason why coaches unhappy with jump to SEC

Ask Phil Danaher, who coaches at Corpus Christi (Texas) Calallen and is in his 41st year of coaching, and it's all about tradition. Danaher thinks A&M playing in the SEC opens the door for recruiting, but whether or not recruits want to see A&M's current losing trend continue against SEC opponents is a big concern.

"If they don't do well in the SEC, I think you'll see kids in Texas wanting to stay in Texas," Danaher said. "A&M's a very fine academic school, but as far as athletics go, the kids are seeing if they can be successful in the SEC. If so, I think it will benefit them, as they will have the same opportunities they had in Big 12. I don't see where this will help A&M much, but I can see where it could hurt if they don't win."

[...]

Outlaw added: "Kids who go to Texas or any other school in the state go because they want their families to be able to see them in person on a regular basis. I understand why A&M's doing what they're doing, but the fans in Texas prefer to watch their teams on the road playing in state as opposed to Florida and South Carolina."

[...]

Meadows added: "I coached Von Miller and Cyrus Gray in high school [at DeSoto, Texas]. If this would have happened in the middle of their careers, I would have been irritated. I think this is going to cheat some of the kids out of history and tradition. Some say this will give our kids a chance to play in the SEC. I think we've got players who already have those chances."

If the HS coaches are not onboard then aTm will have trouble recruiting. The coaches have a lot of influence on where these recruits go, IMO.