PonyFans.com

Even if the money were the same I'd rather be playing the Big 12 teams and I believe Baylor would feel the same. Baylor used to compete on occasion with UT, ATM and TT. They just don't have a decent program right now. They will compete again someday if they don't get kicked out first.
BTW- Missouri gains what by joining the Big 10? Is the TV contract better? I don't think so. Is it better athletic conference? I don't think so. And maybe the biggest reason is that there biggest rival (by far) is KU. KSU is a bigger rival than anyone in the Big 10 and so is OU. There is no reason for MU to go to the Big 10 and they won't.

I think the Big 10 TV Contract is bigger-that conference covers a very high percentage of the TVs in America.

Let's just say Mizzou goes Big 10...who does Big 12 take? Arkansas, Iowa, BYU, SMU/TCU? Who else would be in the running?

By the way, this Miami thing is heating up. Read this article: <A HREF="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-umacc30apr30,0,448336.story?coll=sfla-sports-headlines" TARGET=_blank>http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-umacc30apr30,0,448336.story?coll=sfla-sports-headlines</A>

No question in my mind. Arkansas would be the top choice to replace Missou in the Big 12. The Big 12 North schools wouldn't want another school from Texas and would vote against that. Get rid of Broyles and I don't think there is any doubt they would reunite with Texas and A&M. Just mho.

wasn't there some article in the DMN about Arkansas and how much more they are making because they are in the SEC as opposed to even the Big 12?

I really don't see Missou ending up in the Big 10 because I think they fall behind Notre Dame and Pitt as Big 10 choices. Penn State will use whatever influence they have to make sure the Big 10 takes Pitt over Missou (assuming Notre Dame says no thanks once again).

Bottom line is that all of this is triggered by ACC expansion. The Big East really is in trouble if this happens. I can't imagine that conference surviving as a BCS conference and this will open up all kinds of possibilities for a major restructuring of I-A football conferences. For our sake, let's just hope it happens.

As for those who wory about "conference rivalries" being broken up, Missou could still play Kansas, just like we play TCU, Florida plays Fla State, South Carolina plays Clemson, etc... Rivalries outlast conference affiliations. Texas/OU was a pretty big deal long before they became conference mates!

And now this discussion to further complicate the possibilities of new conference alignments for 2006

<A HREF="http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/6345606" TARGET=_blank>http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/6345606</A>

The fifth bowl would only work if the final two teams didn't play in the four exisitng BCS Bowls Game. In other words, held out on New Years because the Presidents won't approve yet another game for the final two (a team could play 17 or 18 games, which they won't like). The alternative is to resist or eliminate Conference Championship games or remove pre-season games. Conf. Championships generate too much $.

my reaction to the 5th BCS bowl and subsequent championship game was different. Add a 5th game that might generate another $25 million and the college presidents will jump at the opportunity for increased revenue. Granted, some will object, but in the end the almighty $ will rule. I think that's why the ACC is looking to strengthen their league for football. The final two will still come down to RPI, so the ACC wants to be every bit as strong as the SEC and Big XII, which right now they are not. The question for the mid-majors is whether this will really the possibility that the best mid-major might get a chance to participate. I'm skeptical, but at least they're talking about it.

[This message has been edited by Charleston Pony (edited 05-01-2003).]