****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.****

[Saul Good]

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

[rageeumr]

Originally Posted by alnorth

I may be a big 12 fan, but I can't really chalk it up to viability and strength. They may be viable, strong, and long-term stable now, but thats only through the sheer stubbornness of the Texas legislature, and the PAC 12's lack of balls.

I'm not saying that the Big 12's turnaround isn't based in luck or happenstance. They had a lot of things break right for them. But in the end, what you have now is a conference that's highly unlikely to completely crumble in the foreseeable future. I wouldn't have been able to say that confidently a year ago.

Texas will continue to rule the roost, but I don't think they wield absolute power like they might have 6-8 months ago.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

They are not even today.

They have actually had the exact same record in three of the last four seasons (9-4 last year, 10-4 in 2010, and 10-4 in 2008). In 2009, Nebraska was 10-4 versus 7-6 for Florida State. They aren't quite equal I guess, but I was giving FSU the benefit of the doubt. Technically, you're right, though. Nebraska is slightly better.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

They have actually had the exact same record in three of the last four seasons (9-4 last year, 10-4 in 2010, and 10-4 in 2008). In 2009, Nebraska was 10-4 versus 7-6 for Florida State. They aren't quite equal I guess, but I was giving FSU the benefit of the doubt. Technically, you're right, though. Nebraska is slightly better.

And Nebraska has done that playing in a tougher conference each year.

Nebraska >>>> FSU all-time, and recently.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

I was trying to not be overly homer-tastic. I can see a situation where they beat South Carolina, but that is an ultimate best-case scenario, I think. And would require a lot of things going exactly correctly.

I put at aTm, Georgia, at SC, and at Florida, and at Tenn into the 40%-60% range.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Arizona State also was hit heavily by defection, losing its QB and several other stars. Missouri crushes them in Columbia.

Wins:

SE Lousiana
Arizona State
UCF
Syracuse
Kentucky
Vanderbilt


Toss-Ups:
@Texas A&M (three-peat about to happen. Vanderbilt is better than aTm currently)
@Tennessee (this is IF you believe they're going to be better)
@Florida (winning in the Swamp is not easy, but Muschamp has yet to get it going and STILL doesn't have an offense)
Georgia (home game, first SEC game, Georgia is not great early in the season)


Losses:
Alabama
@South Carolina

I would say 8-4 is a good baseline. That would have them splitting the toss-up games (Likely beating aTm and Tennessee and losing to Florida and Georgia). THey're not going to lose a non-conference game if Franklin is healthy.

At Florida and at Tennessee will be much tougher games than a lot of Mizzou fans seem to think.

Florida is still loaded with 4 and 5 star talent, especially on defense. UT was missing their starting QB and top WR last year. They are a lot more talented than their record from last year indicates (think about what our record would be in Franklin was out half the year).

Both would be tough games at home, but Rocky Top and The Swamp are two of the toughest stadiums to play at in the country. If we split I would be thrilled.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

At Florida and at Tennessee will be much tougher games than a lot of Mizzou fans seem to think.

Florida is still loaded with 4 and 5 star talent, especially on defense. UT was missing their starting QB and top WR last year. They are a lot more talented than their record from last year indicates (think about what our record would be in Franklin was out half the year).

Both would be tough games at home, but Rocky Top and The Swamp are two of the toughest stadiums to play at in the country. If we split I would be thrilled.

Oh, I thnk they'll be tough games. The environment and overall talent level at those schools are pretty great.

But those games definitely don't belong in the "sure loss" category. I have them splitting in my prediction.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

They have actually had the exact same record in three of the last four seasons (9-4 last year, 10-4 in 2010, and 10-4 in 2008). In 2009, Nebraska was 10-4 versus 7-6 for Florida State. They aren't quite equal I guess, but I was giving FSU the benefit of the doubt. Technically, you're right, though. Nebraska is slightly better.

Last decade? Sure, records are very similar.

Recruiting rankings the last 5 years? It's not even the same stratosphere.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Last decade? Sure, records are very similar.

Recruiting rankings the last 5 years? It's not even the same stratosphere.

I guess I would prefer to win more games, and Nebraska has.

Hell, FSU has vacated more games than they've won in recent years.

[beer bacon]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

KK layin it down on you MU guys right now.

KK sucking off Texas again? That makes for great local radio.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Last decade? Sure, records are very similar.

Recruiting rankings the last 5 years? It's not even the same stratosphere.

And titles are awarded for recruiting rankings?

Never thought I'd do this... but in defense of Nebraska... the Huskers have consistently been taking small classes - less than 25 players - which hurts your overall recruiting ranking. They also are not in a recruiting hotbed where ALL their guys get a lot of attention/hype.

Florida State is going to be in the top 15 in recruiting rankings most years. Nebraska will be in the 20s.

Neither school is what it was under its previous legendary coach, but Nebraska has been consistently better under Pelini than FSU under FIsher.

[Codered]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

KK layin it down on you MU guys right now.

KK is the worst sports talk host not named Fescoe. Pretty much anything that comes out of his mouth is garbage.

[Bambi]

Wow, adding Texas A&M and Missouri will NOT increase the SEC-CBS TV deal. And Texas A&M and MU will not be appearing on the CBS flagship.

ouch

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foo...-cable-channel

[rageeumr]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Wow, adding Texas A&M and Missouri will NOT increase the SEC-CBS TV deal. And Texas A&M and MU will not be appearing on the CBS flagship.

ouch

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foo...-cable-channel

Reading comprehension fail or more trolling? The article says that they are in negotiations, and CBS has "balked" at paying more. What do you expect them to do, back the truck up because they're just damn good guys?

Of course they're going to say that A&M/Mizzou add nothing, and of course they're going to argue to not increase the deal. Anything else would be terrible negotiating.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Wow, adding Texas A&M and Missouri will NOT increase the SEC-CBS TV deal. And Texas A&M and MU will not be appearing on the CBS flagship.

ouch

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-foo...-cable-channel

Of course CBS doesn't want to pay more.

And of course they actually will end up paying more.

God damn you are stupid.

[eazyb81]

What's your college football program worth?

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-footbal...-teams-schools

Four SEC teams and three Big Ten teams in the top ten.

Mizzou at #30. Kansas at #56. Kansas State at #70.

I thought West Virginia and TCU were upgrades?