Looks Like MWC is Putting Hold on Boise

[Stallion]

somewhat good news. I think the MWC thinks they may end up with better options like Kansas, Kansas St. maybe Colorado and Iowa St, Houston, Baylor, SMU, Nevada and Fresno also might be a factor.

[Samurai Stang]

Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State may be enough on their own to bring the MWC to BCS AQ status. Do you believe they will expand beyond 12, or that SMU will be left hoping for an echo shift?

[Stallion]

I've never heard one good reason why they should expand past 12 or maybe 14 (if Colorado is availiable). That's my concern because we'd probably need 16 to be included unless the Big East wants to swoop in on the Midwest schools.

[couch 'em]

I don't get the kansas schools et. al. to the MWC. There is a much better solution.

Adding to the MWC doesn't solve the problem of MWC's lower end dragging them down. Then they have to make themselves AQ.

It would be much simpler for the top MWC schools, plus anyone else they might want, to join to the four Big 12 leftovers in the already-AQ Big 12 if the PAC-16 occurs.

[EastStang]

The real question would be whether the MWC would have to jettison teams like Wyoming, SDS or New Mexico. I just don't see Kansas being too enthused about traveling to Laramie in November. I don't see this same group going to 16, this is after all former members of the WAC-16.

[Samurai Stang]

I've never heard one good reason why they should expand past 12 or maybe 14 (if Colorado is availiable). That's my concern because we'd probably need 16 to be included unless the Big East wants to swoop in on the Midwest schools.

Kansas would seem ideal for the basketball centered Big East.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Big-12 is not actually going to blow up (at least not yet). Most of the schools seem to want to keep it together, and Neb. doesn't seem to have a totally clear path into the Big-10. Plus, Pac-10 membership means UT has to give up the dream of its own TV network, which it wouldn't have to do in the Big-12 (or the SEC for that matter).

My point is that, despite all the talk of this being the endgame, I'm not yet convinced that it is. Time is what SMU needs at this point, and a little more time may be what we end up with.

cautionary note: I'm wrong on about 85% of the predictions that I make about this stuff.

[abezontar]

If only KU, KSU, ISU, and Baylor are left, does the Big 12 get to keep its AQ status (assuming they backfill)? Isn't there some minimum number of the same schools that must be in a conference from one year to the next in order to keep the AQ status and NCAA autobids?

[Samurai Stang]

I've never heard one good reason why they should expand past 12 or maybe 14 (if Colorado is availiable).

I am certain that, in time, the Pac-10 will propose a new rule that will "reward" them for their expansion. Perhaps an extra BCS bid for conferences of their size.

[West Coast Johnny]

I've never heard one good reason why they should expand past 12 or maybe 14 (if Colorado is availiable). That's my concern because we'd probably need 16 to be included unless the Big East wants to swoop in on the Midwest schools.

I think the big East tries to add the forgotten four. Kansas, KSU and Baylor all have good basketball which is important to the big east. They also have football programs (any program will due). I would think that a conference comprised of the Big 12 forgotten four and the best of the MWC & C-USA would be better than the Big East. My thoughts are that Big East Schools like Louisville will join the midwestern conference (whatever it is called) and not the other way around.

[SMUstang]

I don't get the kansas schools et. al. to the MWC. There is a much better solution.

Adding to the MWC doesn't solve the problem of MWC's lower end dragging them down. Then they have to make themselves AQ.

It would be much simpler for the top MWC schools, plus anyone else they might want, to join to the four Big 12 leftovers in the already-AQ Big 12 if the PAC-16 occurs.

The problem with this is that Dan Beebe is the Commissioner of the Big 12. And I don't see BYU, Utah, TCU et al wanting to join him and jetison Craig Thompson. If the MWC stops at 12 I think they will take Kansas and KSU and Colorado. Just my opinion.

[Charleston Pony]

football is driving the bus, but Kansas brings instant basketball credibility to any conference so they are a no-brainer for the MWC. Boise could immediately help in the quest for BCS inclusion. What does Iowa State bring to the table? I could see where Baylor might have some appeal as a travel partner for TCU, not to mention their appeal among Baptists. BYU will appreciate that and they remains a powrful influence in the MWC.

MWC could be in a good position and TCU's move could really turn out to have been a good one...but that could all blow up if the BCS changes are small and they lose Utah and possibly someone else to backfill behind Colorado. Bottom line is that the MWC does not control anything...they are just in position to react.

[RE Tycoon]

If only KU, KSU, ISU, and Baylor are left, does the Big 12 get to keep its AQ status (assuming they backfill)? Isn't there some minimum number of the same schools that must be in a conference from one year to the next in order to keep the AQ status and NCAA autobids?

They would lose the BCS and automatic NCAA tourney bids, so there would be no reason for the conference to continue to exist.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/sport ... rence.html

If the Pac-10 swiped six teams from the Big 12 and Missouri or Nebraska went to the Big Ten, the Big 12 would become defunct. Under N.C.A.A. guidelines, a conference needs at least six universities that have played together for five years. The Big 12 would lose its Bowl Championship Series bid and automatic bid to the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament. That could leave colleges like Kansas and Kansas State to be snapped up by the Big East, which could be its best bet to continue using the lure of a B.C.S. bid for football recruits.

[planoponyfan]

[quote="1983 Cotton Bowl"]Plus, Pac-10 membership means UT has to give up the dream of its own TV network, which it wouldn't have to do in the Big-12 (or the SEC for that matter).

[snip]

cautionary note: I'm wrong on about 85% of the predictions that I make about this stuff.[/quote]

I agree that a big 12 break-up is not a foregone conclusion. But I have to take issue with one thing that keeps coming up: A UT Television network. Folks, that's just not going to happen.
I don't know who at UT thinks they're going to be able to start such a thing and rake in the dough, but they are absolutely delusional. The Big Ten has a network because it has 10 schools to provide programming for it and an alumni reach that makes it worthy of carriage nationwide. Notre Dame might get away with such a thing too. (hence the NBC deal) But UT? Not a chance.

Ask yourself, who would carry a UT network? They might get Dish or DirecTV to carry it on their regional sports packages, but even that would be a stretch. Local cable providers outside of Texas would have little interest in it. Even on the Texas cable systems, it's likely the companies would put the channel on a sports tier, reducing the number of homes available. I think UT would find that the channel would just not be in enough homes to make it worthwhile.

I'm also with you on your last statement: I am frequently proven wrong about predictions. I do know about the television business though. I'm not sure UT does.

[huskerpony]

Looks like someone in Austin may have figured this out. Sounds like they are laying the groundwork to give it up. From Chip Brown:

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091903

"Also, a Texas source suggested too much is being made about the revenue that UT could command from launching its own network. UT is still putting together financial models but doesn't expect to make any "notable" revenue from such a network for "a period of time" after it would be launched.

Texas is not the only school looking into its own network. Oklahoma and Nebraska are also doing the same.

Longhorns officials also made it clear Sunday night that their intention is to stay in the Big 12. One source basically laid out all of the things Texas has accomplished in the Big 12 (top revenue-producing athletic department at $125 million; a national title in football and another appearance in the BCS national title game; a Final Four in basketball; top licensing and marketing rankings) and said, "Why would we trade certainty for uncertainty?"

Two sources inside the league said the Big 12 is looking at a couple scenarios as it pertains to its television situation when its cable package with Fox Sports Net comes up in 2011."