But WVU should transition seamlessly as they replace the dregs of the Big East with the Oklahoma and Texas schools.

And over the last five years WVU has won 49 games in the craptastic Big East versus Mizzou 48 in the same timespan.

Let's not even get into WVU's inability to admit the SEC academic casualties now that they have to operate under a real conference's academic requirements....

This factor has been severely overstated.

If Missouri were going somewhere else (Big Ten, Big East, PAC) it apparently would be an issue. Actual research and conversations with Texas recruits show that moving to the SEC is not a severe problem for most of them.

There are a few guys the Tigers will miss on (probably 1-2 a year) because they're in the SEC rather than the Big 12, but projecting a drastic drop-off is not based in fact.

I was beating this drum before I embraced the move, but the facts aren't on its side.

Yeah, West Virginia has benefited greatly from playing in the Big East.

Recent conference titles:

2003 (8-5, 6-1)
2004 (8-4, 4-2)
2005 (11-1, 7-0)
2007 (11-2, 5-2)
2010 (9-3, 5-2)

Missouri - along with several other Big 12 schools - could have done just as well. The Tigers likely win the Big East in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and would have been right there in 2009 (when I believe flippin' UCONN won the league).

Their basketball program is unarguably better than Mizzou's (though that probably doesn't last past Huggy bear and probably takes a hit playing in the Big 12-2-1-1+? with less ties to New York), but their football program is perceived as better only because they've dominated a cupcake league.

Well, when Arkansas moved to the SEC, their Texas recruiting dropped off dramatically.

West Virginia's athletics stand to take a hit. Travel will suck, and no more partial qualifiers spells trouble.

How are they doing now? 15 years ago, the SEC wasn't the dominant football conference that it is today.

Good pick up for the Big Leftover conference compared to what teams are available. For those of you who think it is an upgrade over Mizzou are kidding yourselfs. Let's be honest, if Kansas was in the Big East, they would rack up twice as many wins in that weak football conference.
Other than that though, I am curious to see if they stay at 10 or add some more of these city schools to put them back to 12.

You can pretty much add on "I hope" to a lot of HH's posts that have predictions about Mizzou.

They are more legit that way.

Some facts that would be helpful in that analysis...

1) The period around joining the SEC (1991) was a low part in Arkansas football because of coaching turmoil. Jack Crowe was an unmitigated disaster, and was fired after losing a game to The Citadel in 1992. They played out the string with an interim coach in 1992 and then brought in Danny Ford, who was washed up and had been retired before coming to Arkansas.

Hard to maintain recruiting ties when you go through four coaches in a four-year span.

2) TV was different back then . The SEC was not on TV as much, and didn't have the reach on ESPN and CBS it currently does.

3) The brand was different. The SEC, while being a great conference, was not yet the clear and undisputed best overall conference like it is now.

4) There was not a team in Texas in the SEC for Arkansas to regularly play. The SWC was still in existence, and Rice, SMU, Houston, etc. were much bigger players for Texas players than currently, in addition to UT, aTm, Oklahoma, Baylor, Tech.

It's a different situation for Missouri than it was for Arkansas. The Tigers enter the SEC with a strong, established coach, a program that - 2011 hiccup aside - is in the best shape it has been since the 1960s. From all indications, Texas A&M will be Missouri's cross-division rival, so they'll be in Texas frequently. And the SEC is all over the place as far as TV broadcasts.

I like the idea of playing from the SEC East, with aTm as the cross-division rival, for recruiting purposes, too. Having home-and-away with Georgia and Florida gives the Tigers the chance to do the same thing in those states it has in Texas - mine overlooked kids to build the athleticism of the roster.

I'd expect the Tigers to land a few more in-state kids, get a few less from Texas, and shift emphasis from Oklahoma to beefing up efforts in Florida and Louisiana and Georgia.

West Virginia to Big 12 (if it hasn't been posted yet)

I hope the Big 12 stays at 10. I want to see K-State play in Fort Worth every other year. And once a year in BB.

Mizzou played in the Big XII North + 3 rotating south games. Is it that much different than the Big East?

I would buy your argument if Mizzou won the Big XII. Ever.

...or if they won the Big 8 since I was born.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...ay-source-says


Source: Big 12 to accept WVU soon


The Big 12 has told West Virginia it will be accepted into the conference pending formal approval, which could happen as soon as later Tuesday, a Big 12 source said.

Earlier Tuesday, multiple media reports said that West Virginia was headed from the Big East to the Big 12.

West Virginia will be accepted into the conference as a replacement for Missouri, which the conference believes is departing for the SEC. However, according to the source, West Virginia's acceptance into the Big 12 is not contingent on Missouri leaving.

The only thing holding up Missouri's departure is legal concerns, according to multiple reports.

The Big 12 still wants Missouri to play in the conference next season, as to not open the possibility of television renegotiations if the league were to drop to nine teams. The conference feels comfortable at 10 teams but still will consider 12 teams in the future, the source said.

The Big 12 is adding West Virginia because of its football strength, having finished in the BCS standings in four of the past five years, as well as the men's basketball program having reached the NCAA tournament six of the past seven years.

The Big East could try to keep West Virginia for up to 27 months and negotiations on that point would figure to ensue.

At a Big 12 board of directors meeting on Monday, the conference urged Missouri to stay -- and Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton, who had been given permission by the university's governing body to make decisions on the future of the university's athletic program, did not inform the conference that Missouri intended to leave.

But late Monday, Deaton gave some clue as to Missouri's intentions, giving a statement to KOMU-TV in Columbia, Mo., in which he wished the Big 12 "the best and all of that."

"There's no delays here at all," he said, referring to the school's step toward leaving the Big 12. "There's some very specific things that have to be addressed. We want to address those. We really can't rush these things. These are things you can't rush."

The Big 12 also is discussing a conference media network, which a source said could even include content, if not games, related to the University of Texas, which founded its own Longhorn Network in association with ESPN.
Neither conference would confirm Monday that West Virginia was moving from the Big East to the Big 12.

You're absolutely correct.

Congratulations on your upgrade, I'm sure you'll all be very very happy together.

Dueces.

It's a lot different, in that Texas and Oklahoma is always on Missouri's schedule.

The point is that the Big East, in addition to not having as many teams or a conference championship game, is a much, much easier league than the Big 12.

There's been no one in that league during West Virginia's run that can compare to Texas or Oklahoma. Since Miami and Va. Tech bailed, the Big East has been basically the Big 12 North division.