In 2010, the fun began. Nebraska to the Big Ten was the first domino to fall. Colorado to the Pac 10 was the second. Utah followed them. Boise Jumped to the Mountain West, TCU left the MWC for the Big East. And now it’s starting up again in 2011. Texas A&M to the SEC is actually not happening now; but still a possibility in the future.
And Mizzou, Clemson and Florida State might follow them.
June-Aug is typically the sports media dead zone; especially so if your baseball team is from Chicago, because they’re almost always out of the race early.
However college football conference recruiting season heated the news up in May 2010, and it could get going again this summer. Maybe. Just not today.
According to ESPN.com
The Southeastern Conference is staying just as it is — for now.
However, the game of major college conference realignment appears far from finished.
University of Florida President Bernie Machen, the chairman of the league’s presidents and chancellors committee, said the group met Sunday and “reaffirmed our satisfaction with the present 12 institutional alignment.”
Machen said no action was taken regarding Texas A&M or any other schools. He didn’t, however, close the door on change
According to Mr. SEC (in 2010)
As we pointed out in our “Expounding On Expansion” series, Texas A&M would be an excellent get for the SEC. The school — as Andy Staples also points out in the above SI piece — has nearly as much going for it as Texas, a school that everyone is chasing.
The two main questions are these:
1. Would Texas A&M be allowed to leave the other Texas schools and do its own thing if it chooses? If A&M chose to go east rather than west, it’s conceivable that the Pac-10 would then invite Baylor to join its ranks. That might satisfy some Texas politicians. A&M might have a little extra wiggle room to go out on its own because the current governor of Texas is an Aggie grad.
2. Would Texas A&M prefer a move to the SEC — which it has talked with before — over a move to the new Pac-16? A&M athletic director Bill Byrne has spoken publicly about the travel issues involved in such a mega-league, but one still has to wonder if the Aggies would be willing to part with Texas when push comes to shove.
Although I agree that A&M would make a decent fit, I don’t see them as one of the “gets” in this conference realignment/expansion scenario. They do have a presence in the Houston and Dallas media markets, and they do have history in football, but they’re not really special in terms of market reach and their program has been rather mediocre lately. They’re a solid free agent to round out your starting five, but certainly not one you’d give a max contract to. (I’ve met Max Contract- he’s a cool guy, often hangs out with Max Protect)
On question one, I’d have to say that’s a bad scenario for the Pac-16, getting Baylor instead of A&M would be nothing short of disappointment, and if the Aggies want to do their own thing, perhaps Texas Tech would be a better replacement. Even though TT would move with Texas, probably, if anywhere. This brings us to point two:
It appears many schools need to move with a “partner.” You’ve heard the rhetoric, and there is some validity to these ideas, even if it reminds of the painful awkwardness and forced cross-gender interaction of square dancing in 6th grade gym class. Your middle school didn’t have square dancing in P.E.? Well, I guess the school I went to was a bit redneck then.
But A&M (and every other school for that matter) needs a partner, or three to keep the numbers balanced. It’s the only way this will get done.
And their three partners are potentially FSU, Mizzou and Clemson. (Who needs ACC football anyway?)
Paul M. Banks is CEO of The Sports Bank.net, an official Google News site that generates millions of unique visitors. He’s also a regular contributor to Chicago Now, Walter Football.com, Yardbarker, and Fox Sports
He does regular weekly radio spots in Chicago and Cleveland and has appeared on live shows all across the world from Houston to New Zealand. You can follow him on Twitter