PonyFans.com

Basketball may well be the horse that drives some of these mergers. KU and Baylor are not going to want to be in a rollover dead conference that they dominate. They'll want to have some RPI. Given our bad results that past few years, I view this aspect as a handicap in the next round. Unless Doh is a positive force due to his powder blue connections, our hoops performance may very well doom us in the future.

basketball isn't driving anything...otherwise, Kansas would be in these discussions and the Big East would be untouchable

Basketball means nothing in these shifts. North Carolina is the most lucrative basketball in the country, pulling in about $16 million a year. Texas football makes that in two games (and that doesn't even include the big-money games like Oklahoma and Texas A&M, etc....)

FWIW, expansion will destroy college sports. Sure, tons of money to be made, but regional rivalries will go by the way side, Too much traveling for non revenue squads etc. By the time it's said and done, there won't be BCS busters, and super conference will get like 12 bids each in hoops. Effectively, they are destroying everything for a few extra decent football games a year

But if you're Kansas, Missouri, and Baylor with NCAA basketball vision and you have 7 seats to fill at the dinner table, would you want schools with weak football, great basketball, or solid football, lousy basketball? Or marginal football, marginal basketball?

I still say the MWC could be the key to solving this mess.

Let's say Texas joins Colorado in the PAC 16 and brings OU,OSU,Tech and A&M with them. The MWC could invite ISU,KU,KSU,MU & Baylor to join, forming a 14 member group with pretty good hoops. Think about UNLV, NM, Utah, etc...respectable hoops with good fan followings. All is not lost.

I cannot find any scenarios wherein SMU benefits or becomes included. We could be a huge loser and our basketball failures will be a part of the reason.

As has been previously mentioned, football revenues drive everything.

With that said, if we were to join the Big XII, I believe our basketball team would improve, as there would be more national exposure, more competition, and thus more players willing to come play in a big time league.

PoconoPony wrote:I cannot find any scenarios wherein SMU benefits or becomes included. We could be a huge loser and our basketball failures will be a part of the reason.

There are actually a couple of scenarios that could benefit SMU

1) Texas decides to remain the kingpin of Big XII and TCU/SMU get invited to rebuild the league, joining the southern division with former SWC mates

2) Texas leaves along with Tech, OU & OSU but Baylor and A&M stay behind. Big XII invites TCU, SMU, Houston & Rice to backfill it's southern division and North finds 2 replacements for Colorado & Nebraska (choose among Tulsa, Memphis or possibly someone from MWC)

In the latter scenario, A&M, Missou and Kansas schools finally have a shot at being "leaders" of their conference, one in which basketball doesn't necessarily take a back seat to king football.

basketball doesnt have relevance in this story, other than maybe Kansas.

Charleston Pony I like what you are thinking; however, the $$$$ greed will drive all decisions and we simply do not bring enough to the table. For some reason I do not think TU, OU and partners fit very well in the PAC 10. Not to sure what TU may find in common with WA, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal or Stanford. I wonder if TU fans want an "exciting" trip to Pullman, WA. Would Texas baseball want games in Seattle, Berkley, Eugene, Salem...etc. I know that football and TV are the driving force; however, just cannot see any real rivalries with any team currently in the PAC 10. If anything, TU and followers are far more compatible with the SEC which is what Stallings wants for TAMU. I could easily see hugh rivalries with Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida vs. WSU, OSU....etc. I just hope that sanity prevails and schools come to the reality that regional rivalries are the strongest, facilitate fan travel, and cut cost particularly when an AD must pay for all minor sports. I hope you are right, and TU wants to replace NU and Colorado and the Big XII survives. If it does not survive, college football will have changed forever and the power brokers will have just grabbed the whole pie and everyone else will be a distant second with no way to ever change their plight.

PoconoPony wrote:Charleston Pony I like what you are thinking; however, the $$$$ greed will drive all decisions and we simply do not bring enough to the table. For some reason I do not think TU, OU and partners fit very well in the PAC 10. Not to sure what TU may find in common with WA, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal or Stanford. I wonder if TU fans want an "exciting" trip to Pullman, WA. Would Texas baseball want games in Seattle, Berkley, Eugene, Salem...etc. I know that football and TV are the driving force; however, just cannot see any real rivalries with any team currently in the PAC 10. If anything, TU and followers are far more compatible with the SEC which is what Stallings wants for TAMU. I could easily see hugh rivalries with Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida vs. WSU, OSU....etc. I just hope that sanity prevails and schools come to the reality that regional rivalries are the strongest, facilitate fan travel, and cut cost particularly when an AD must pay for all minor sports. I hope you are right, and TU wants to replace NU and Colorado and the Big XII survives. If it does not survive, college football will have changed forever and the power brokers will have just grabbed the whole pie and everyone else will be a distant second with no way to ever change their plight.

I don't think they are a good fit, either...but it sure looks like Texas and their friends are headed west. As much as I'd like to see us join an "all central time zone" group. I really expect the MWC to benefit from this. It's looking like they would pluck Kansas and Missou and grow to 12 members in what will be a pretty respectable group to replace the Big XII. If Baylor and KSU are left behind, I'd like to see them in a 14 member CUSA's western division with Tulane moving east.

Texas has kept its rivalries other than the question mark of A&M. They will still play OU, TT, OSU, CO, and probably A&M. There will be one or maybe 2 cross conference games a year that will be more fun than our trips to ECU or Marshall. Seems many of our guys enjoyed their trip to Washington last year other than the outcome. Key is, they are taking their rivalries with them and adding AZ and AZ St., which means one trip to AZ a year which is not a bad thing. With a 16 team conference the play between divisons can be limited and then you just have a championship game at the end. The key to the conference is TV revenue, not cross conference games.

mrydel wrote:Texas has kept its rivalries other than the question mark of A&M. They will still play OU, TT, OSU, CO, and probably A&M. There will be one or maybe 2 cross conference games a year that will be more fun than our trips to ECU or Marshall. Seems many of our guys enjoyed their trip to Washington last year other than the outcome. Key is, they are taking their rivalries with them and adding AZ and AZ St., which means one trip to AZ a year which is not a bad thing. With a 16 team conference the play between divisons can be limited and then you just have a championship game at the end. The key to the conference is TV revenue, not cross conference games.

And if A&M doesn't come with them, Texas will maintain their annual rivalry game but now it will be with a SEC team which improves their non-conference strength of schedule.