Miz, Neb, Cuse, Pitt, Rutgers to Big 10 (Article inside)

[Topper]

Oklahoma/OSU at great risk, if Big Ten and SEC expand:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3885 ... alignments

Exactly. Oklahoma, with its great football heritage and pretty good national/television fan base could be looking for a place to call home along with Kansas and their basketball powerhouse team. I remember the SWC was talking with the Big East about a co-operative agreement back before the Big 12 devoured everything in sight. There is no reason a smaller conference (think OU, OSU, Kansas, K State, Tech, Baylor etc) . If we could get SMU in on such a deal, think of the great basketball teams we could draw to Moody.

[HB Pony Dad]

Oklahoma/OSU at great risk, if Big Ten and SEC expand:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3885 ... alignments

Exactly. Oklahoma, with its great football heritage and pretty good national/television fan base could be looking for a place to call home along with Kansas and their basketball powerhouse team. I remember the SWC was talking with the Big East about a co-operative agreement back before the Big 12 devoured everything in sight. There is no reason a smaller conference (think OU, OSU, Kansas, K State, Tech, Baylor etc) . If we could get SMU in on such a deal, think of the great basketball teams we could draw to Moody.

Pac 10 Big 12 may also be talking alliance:

Expansion? What about a Pac-10-Big 12 partnership?

I see no advantage for either conference other than negotiating TV dollars.

[huskerpony]

I think that is all it is--either creating a joint network or jointly negotiating their tv contracts.

Problem for the Big 12 is number of tv sets, problem for the Pac 10 is time zone. (problem for the big 10 network is not enough live programming) something like this makes starting a network more viable for both conferences, if they can agree on how to split the money. 22-24 teams, covering three time zones can fill a lot airtime, and you have the population you need when you combine texas and california--plus all of the mid-sized markets you add in.

My understanding was that this was one of the original ideas, but Texas said no. Then the Pac-10 started talking with the ACC. Maybe Texas has caved enough to at least explore it.

It would most likely keep Nebraska in place, and probably Missouri. Then for tv contract purposes, it wouldn't matter where CU went because the Denver market would be involved already, so they wouldn't have to keep CSU so far up on the list if CU heads west.

[Dwan]

While I admit my idea was way out of left field and would never happen, and I prob should have mentioned that before I posted it, my real point was the following:

The most likely scenario is that the Big 10 adds Notre Dame and the Pac-10 adds Utah and BYU. That would be the simple solution to everything. I do agree that the Big 10 really wants Notre Dame and would prefer that to anything. However, it will get interesting if Colorado leaves the Big 12 for the Pac-10. I dont think anybody in the Big 12 will be happy about simply replacing BYU for Colorado. Uncertainty in the Big 12 is bad for the conference. Texas is in a unique situation in that they are the only school in the nation that is desired, and can fit geographically with the Pac-10, Big 10, and SEC. And if changes to the Big 12 occur, Texas going to do what is best for Texas and take A&M with them. In all of these conversations, everybody assumes that Kanas, Kansas State, OU, and OSU are going to do nothing and see what happens. Kansas/Kansas State/Missouri/Nebraska fit geographically with the Big 10 and Texas and Texas A&M fit with the SEC. That really leaves the Oklahoma Schools and Texas Tech somewhat limited.

Also, the SEC has always prided itself and being ahead of the curve. First conference to go to 12 and the first conference to have a championship game. They are not going to sit back and watch. Also, they can get almost any school they want

[Water Pony]

FoxSports suggests that amateur status may also be a thing of the past with Broadcasting determining the shape of the future. In this model, the role of the NCAA is diminished (it already has in FB):

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/cfb- ... ion-050410

[Water Pony]

". . . . how to Save the Big East."

Writer tells the BE to wake-up and fight Dr. Evil, Jim Delaney and the Big Ten/11. The premise: if you wait, you're dead.

http://www.aarontorres-sports.com/artic ... -east.html

[Mexmustang]

Again, the conversation is very interesting. But, for Texas and A&M to leave, abandoning TTU and Baylor behind does require that all the politics are lined up--I think there would be more opposition than many people realize. At the point the state legislature gets involved, UTEP, Houston and even Rice, TCU and SMU constituancies wll chime in. It generally is about money, many don't agree with only filling UT's coffers, without something being left for the other Texas' schools. As Texas takes its fans, games and money to Tennesee, Alabama, Mississippi, FL, KY, and LA, many will see it as a net loss to the state and a net gain to the SEC states (if that is the option). UT may be the big dog in this fight, but the State of Texas is even bigger in the minds of the legislature.
No question Texas will need to take A&M, but maybe also TTU. There is no assurance that these two schools want any part of a football conference that will make them perenial also rans and certainly not a whiff of a conference championship in the next 50 years.

[Topper]

Again, the conversation is very interesting. But, for Texas and A&M to leave, abandoning TTU and Baylor behind does require that all the politics are lined up--I think there would be more opposition than many people realize. At the point the state legislature gets involved, UTEP, Houston and even Rice, TCU and SMU constituancies wll chime in. It generally is about money, many don't agree with only filling UT's coffers, without something being left for the other Texas' schools. As Texas takes its fans, games and money to Tennesee, Alabama, Mississippi, FL, KY, and LA, many will see it as a net loss to the state and a net gain to the SEC states (if that is the option). UT may be the big dog in this fight, but the State of Texas is even bigger in the minds of the legislature.
No question Texas will need to take A&M, but maybe also TTU. There is no assurance that these two schools want any part of a football conference that will make them perenial also rans and certainly not a whiff of a conference championship in the next 50 years.

UT and A&M combined on any issue will get what they want to the exclusion of everyone else. When the SWC fell apart Baylor was only an afterthought because the top state offices were all held by Baylor grads. Not now. Notice how much respect SMU, TCU, Rice, UofH and UTEP got from the leg back then. None. When the political types see the amount of money involved for the two big schools, no amount of loyalty to SMU or anyone else will matter. Never has.

[Stallion]

.....I'll concede that Texas politicians might be able to drag Texas Tech along for the ride if it comes down to either Oklahoma St or Texas Tech which I keep thinking may happen. Problem could be solved by leaving out Utah though and take em all-UT A&M Col Tech OU and OSU

[go4it]

Conference Realignment Grid of Possibilities:

http://collegesportsinfo.com/conference ... ment-grid/

[Mexmustang]

My point is simply that Texas moving to another conference gets the politicians involved--and nothing is certain or even rationale at that point.

Texas would go from having a maximum of five away games in Texas, to one or two. I am assuming that with larger conferences becomes fewer non-conference games. Rice and even OU could be eliminated to meet the new conference shedule. OK, OU is part of the new conference and the game is unaffected. Some members of the legislature are going to weigh in on those "loss of dollars to the state--and other Texas' institutions". Texas is a state institution, not private.

While A&M and Tech would like to follow, would it really be good for them? I would see them just slipping behind in the conference rankings without any real opportunity to ever play for a championship.

All I am tying to point out is that it is not simply up to the coaches and athletic directors to decide the issue--there are other considerations. Even here at SMU, Orsini and Jones must make sure that Turner and the Board are 100% with chasing a bigger conference. Given the reported "cheating" that has escalated in the SEC, the cheating at USC, I could see that they might have real reservations about SMU joining a new Big 12 or so and feel very comfortable playing at our current level.

[Stallion]

When you get down to it-the PAC expansion I forsee just involves trading Baylor for Colorado and ( perhaps OSU for Utah) and keeping the Big 12 South together. Very little change. Nobody down here gives a damn about the Big 12 North-they'd just as soon play the Arizona, California schools as the Big 12 North schools. Nobody wants to play Iowa St or the Northeast schools.

[Mexmustang]

If that's the option, then you're right. But, I still don't see why Texas would want to move in the first place. Literally, as it is now, they only play three real games a year, and will almost always qualify for the BCS championship if they win these. Certainly won't be the case in either an SEC or PAC 10 scenario. Just link conferences and schedules to accomodate the big TV contracts.

[Stallion]

I agree Texas shouldn't do a thing-they already have the BEST possible situation. They get commitments from 90% of the players in Texas that they want. That is no longer the case though if Missouri and Nebraska go to the Big 10 and Colorado goes to the PAC. The Big 12 then is Dead Man Walking-and couldn't get a TV Contract that could compete with the mega-conferences. Texas is not leading this parade but basically will be left with no alternative. The biggest competitiveness mistake that Texas could make would be to allow the SEC into the Texas market-and have all those SEC teams come in and recruit against Texas on its home ground.

[Mexmustang]

If they hold onto Nebraska then they could survive the loss of MO and/or CO. But, you would be right if all three bolt. Maybe Nebraska sees OU, TX and KU the rivalries they would very much like to keep and stay put and allow a couple of replacement schools to join.