PonyFans.com

Yeah, baby. Hit 'em hard.

I'm telling you, Texas was looking to protect it's precious #ss.
Remember these are the same guys who backed out of playing June's Hawaii team in Honolulu, citing travel costs. Yeah, right.

Whoever wrote this crap is an idiot. You can easily make the argument that the new Big 12(10) is a stronger conference then the new Pac-10(12). What is Texas running from? A USC program who cant go to bowl games for the next two years? Are they running from Standford or Cal? What about an Oregon program who did win 10 games last year, but any program who wins ten games within the weak Pac-10 isn't credible to me. Its all about the money. Texas ran to the money and if this idiot cant see that he doesn't need to be writing about college football anymore. A simple minded buffoon can see college football is all about the money now. How is it this idiot cant see that?

couldn't agree more. that article is fairly [deleted].

Yep, the Big XII-2 has shown its domination against SEC and PAC X+2 teams in BSC championship games. The article is dead on. The up and coming NU leaves. A weak CU leaves and nothing is left behind. Watch for Texas to dominate the HornHoled conference and gets its tail handed to it in bowl games.

I do think it was all about the money. However, i disagree, the Big 12 without Nebraska, Colorado, and a conference title game is a much easier conference. It is pointless to argue conference strength because everybody thinks their conference is the best and the other ones are weak, but a 10 team Big 12 I think is one of the weaker football conferences, especailly with the Big 10 and Pac-10 going to 12 and adding conference title games.

The Pac-16 certainly would have been a very challenging conference to say the least.

So....?

That the competition would have been MUCH stiffer in the Pac-16 than in the Big 12. While I dont agree with the article, the fact remains that Texas went with more money and easier competition. I'm sure a lot of people on this board think that the Big 12 with 10 teams is a solid conference, but it is one of the weakest for football. I think you need to look at conferences top to bottom, Texas and OU are top five programs, but Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas are probably three of the worst BCS teams and with Iowa State and Baylor, one could argue are towards the bottom of the FBS. Texas A&M is a top 25 program. Kansas State had a few nice years under Synder but I think they would be a top 40 program and Tech and Oklahoma State probably are top 50 programs. Probably a better conference than the Big East and that is about it.

you know I think Texas Tech and even OSU are a helluva a lot better than Top 50 programs. I realize nobody wants to give Tech credit but that has been a consistently strong program for at least a decade. OSU has been strong too more often than not. At least Top 30 programs

Stallion wrote:you know I think Texas Tech and even OSU are a helluva a lot better than Top 50 programs. I realize nobody wants to give Tech credit but that has been a consistently strong program for at least a decade. OSU has been strong too more often than not. At least Top 30 programs

and Tech owes most of that to Leach. They were a long long way from such a program under Dykes.

that's why I said "last decade". But they have 8 straight 8+ win seasons and have finished ranked 6 out of 7 years. 10 straight bowl seasons under Leach

Whats so tough about the PAC whatever or the Big 10 - they havent exactly set the world on fire either except for the marquee name in each conference (USC and Ohio State)

SEC is by far the strongest - after that it is a group up even now. Nebraska hasnt been all that much to worry about until last year - so we will see if they can sustain that - probably so in the Big 10 except no Texans or southern kids in general will want to go there since they play north now and not south.

Big 12 -2 is still a pretty stout conference. IN fact they need to let in a couple small privates in the north tex area to loosen things up a bit.

One more time...Texas never wanted a Pac 16. Texas knew months ago that the Pac 10 would not change the conferrence split (even up amongst all members) and also knew they would not get permission get their own network. It is doubtful that the Pac 16 TV deal would even give them the revenue they had previously before this began. They got Neb (Osborne) and the conference championship game eliminated, got their uneven split of TV revenues, and their TV rights. This whole story began and ended with D.D. orchastrating an internet fan site---not a major news source like the Dallas, Houston or Austin papers or ESPN or Sports Illustrated, or Fox or ABC, etc.

I am sure that they never even intended to have to increase the split with OU and A&M, but A&M countered their bluff with another bluff (SEC).

This was all about getting a better deal within the Big 12.

The conference did not come up with a new TV deal worth $100's million in 24-48 hours to save the conference, this was in the works and Texas got greedy. They embarassed themselves, and the state--they are a state institution, aren't they? When their conference mates wakeup they wll remain bitter for years. I hope they (and they will) try this again in five years--they have made no friends in the Pac, or the SEC and Nebraska will be waiting for them when they apply to the Big Ten.