It's a team that not a single solitary fan in the entire original conference footprint gives a damn about (I won't try to speak for Arkansas). I'd say Va Tech & WVU are both at least marginally more interesting in the territory, Clemson a great deal moreso.

I don't think LSU is necessarily chomping at the bit for A&M, but we do have a rivalry on sabbatical with them, one that ended with fairly ugly words that have continued as recently as a few years ago.

IMO, it could very quickly become LSU's second biggest rivalry after Ole Miss. (Arkansas LSU, for whatever reason, has never really turned into the energy of a rivalry. Good games, yes, but no rivalry yet.)

For the past 3 months, this whole story has looked like the start of someone's dynasty as they struggle to come up with a rational reason for Football Armageddon that allows them to set up a new dynasty

For the past 3 months, this whole story has looked like the start of someone's dynasty as they struggle to come up with a rational reason for Football Armageddon that allows them to set up a new dynasty

"Oklahoma State Cowboys Rule the Pac-10!"

Pshaw... like that would ever happen. Now you're just making stuff up :D

SI

I say, now that the Big Ten has 12 teams, why stop there or at 14 or 16? Go REALLY BIG and become the BIG TWENTY!

You are the one who said the Big 10 was static. Now are you saying they aren't because the added Penn State over a decade ago?
You might want to look at my past posts. I never said a thing. Stick with politics because you have no clue about sports/athletics.

Not trying to beat a dead horse from the Missouri crowd, but feel free to post a link or source of any sort from the MU President, Chancellor, Athletic Director or any other university official that use their "mouth" in any way.

I know everyone's taking delight in saying Missouri did a lot of talking, but I don't see it. The fan base? Yes. The fan base was tired of the Big 12 and its politics, and we didn't mind letting it known. But the administration never played their cards.

But as for running their mouths, we're not even in the top half of the Big 12.
From my understanding, the governor (Mizzou alum) ran his mouth off about jumping ship, and the representatives were not hiding it, even gloating about to the other members in private conversations. The Nebraska chancellor even mention the university's arrogance during the regents meeting.

I saw something that bothered me earlier on the Big Ten Network. They had a show on the top 10 Big Ten RB's of the 1970's. Penn State RB's were included. I understand the idea that you want to include current member schools in network programming, but as good as Lydell Mitchell & John Cappelletti were, neither one was ever a Big Ten RB. Will the list be upgraded now to include Nebraska RB's, in turn bumping some of the finest players in Big Ten history to be disregarded?

From my understanding, the governor (Mizzou alum) ran his mouth off about jumping ship, and the representatives were not hiding it, even gloating about to the other members in private conversations. The Nebraska chancellor even mention the university's arrogance during the regents meeting.
Here's the quote from Gov. Nixon that got Nebraska's panties in a twist:

"I want to look at what options the Big Ten may have to offer. This is not something that should be kept on the sports page and treated with the back of the hand. We have an obligation to make our schools as excellent as they can be."

So that's why Nebraska left. Apparently Jay Nixon is the most powerful governor in the nation -- he makes a vague comment about exploring options and Nebraska leaves for the Big Ten.

As for the "gloating" in private conversations, I would say prove it. But I would also say that even if it happened, private conversations are far from the accusations being hurled at MU. MU didn't say a thing publicly, it was purely media and fan speculation.

Nebraska took a better deal, pure and simple. It's horsecrap for anyone to imply they left the Big 12 because of MU and CU.

Here's the quote from Gov. Nixon that got Nebraska's panties in a twist:

"I want to look at what options the Big Ten may have to offer. This is not something that should be kept on the sports page and treated with the back of the hand. We have an obligation to make our schools as excellent as they can be."

So that's why Nebraska left. Apparently Jay Nixon is the most powerful governor in the nation -- he makes a vague comment about exploring options and Nebraska leaves for the Big Ten.

As for the "gloating" in private conversations, I would say prove it. But I would also say that even if it happened, private conversations are far from the accusations being hurled at MU. MU didn't say a thing publicly, it was purely media and fan speculation.

Nebraska took a better deal, pure and simple. It's horsecrap for anyone to imply they left the Big 12 because of MU and CU.

Earlier in this thread I provided a link where professors at MU were openly lobbying for the Big Ten. So maybe Mike Alden and the President didn't specifically say anything, but there were plenty of others with ties to the Tigers that did talk openly about accepting a Big Ten bid.

Personally, I don't have a problem with MU doing it. In fact, I like how aggressive MU's government has been at thinking of themselves before the Big 12. They should. It's every team for itself.

Conference Realignment as told in MS Paint.

Warning, NFSW. Not even remotely.

The Way of The World-Conference Realignment Redux in MS Paint (http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/65557-The-Way-of-The-World-Conference-Realignment-Redux-in-MS-Paint)

Pretty awesome though.

ChipBrownOB

Beebe providing assurances to TX, OU, A&M, Tech, Ok St, KU, KSU, MIzzou, Baylor and Iowa St they can get to $17m/per in next TV deal.

The Big 12 has hired a new special commissioner. His name is John Brown, and he's apparently had a lot of experience keeping a cool head, making sure emotions don't take over, and seeing to it that groups of people with different agendas get along really swell. He'll make sure everything runs smoothly as the conference transitions into a new phase.


http://i759.photobucket.com/albums/xx239/thewaldorf/JohnBrown.jpg?t=1276413058

iraqi-information-minister.jpg

ChipBrownOB

Beebe providing assurances to TX, OU, A&M, Tech, Ok St, KU, KSU, MIzzou, Baylor and Iowa St they can get to $17m/per in next TV deal.

I guess Fox has offered them a deal. If the Big 12 manages to stay intact then I hope they kick out Mizzou. Not cause I hate them but because the comedy generated would be top notch.

I cant imagine someone paid that much for the Red River shootout.

That being said, Texas will be getting even more of a share then they already were

Here's the quote from Gov. Nixon that got Nebraska's panties in a twist:

"I want to look at what options the Big Ten may have to offer. This is not something that should be kept on the sports page and treated with the back of the hand. We have an obligation to make our schools as excellent as they can be."

So that's why Nebraska left. Apparently Jay Nixon is the most powerful governor in the nation -- he makes a vague comment about exploring options and Nebraska leaves for the Big Ten.

As for the "gloating" in private conversations, I would say prove it. But I would also say that even if it happened, private conversations are far from the accusations being hurled at MU. MU didn't say a thing publicly, it was purely media and fan speculation.

Nebraska took a better deal, pure and simple. It's horsecrap for anyone to imply they left the Big 12 because of MU and CU.

Agreed. Mizzou has been very reserved in any public comments. Anyone who insists otherwise is buying into the Texas-sourced PR blitz that has been pushed out there in recent days. They're just looking to offload the blame on the breakup of the conference on someone else, but they know exactly why it happened. MU and CU aren't the one trying to get out of paying the exit fees. NU and the South schools are.

Hold the presses:

Orangebloods.com - New proposal to save Big 12 with 10 teams being considered by UT (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803)

Missouri has been so closed lipped that everyone on FOFC knows what they are thinking at all times.

Or we are being lied to. Whichever you want to believe :)

Here's something on Insider about the remaining Big 12 possibly absorbing the MWC:

Most of the talk about the future of the five Big 12 leftovers has revolved around their being picked up by the Mountain West. But MWC sources tell Matt Tait of the Lawrence Journal-World that the exact opposite might happen -- that the five-member Big 12 would actually absorb the entire MWC (http://www2.kusports.com/news/2010/jun/13/could-mountain-west-merger-save-big-12/) to protect the conference's automatic BCS berth and its NCAA tournament revenue.

This scenario very well could have been discussed on a conference call among representatives from the five prospective orphans (http://www2.kusports.com/news/2010/jun/13/could-mountain-west-merger-save-big-12/), which the Kansas City Star reported.

"I know that both sides are going to be very sensitive to how that part's handled," one source said, "so that it doesn't jeopardize the BCS bid or any of the basketball shares that those schools have earned."

Tait points out that one other benefit to this would be that a Big 12 would still exist to collect penalties (which would be high) from the departing members. A three-quarters vote (nine schools) is required to dissolve the Big 12, and with five schools remaining, the seven others wouldn't have enough votes to do away with their financial obligations.

Moving the Pac-10 to 12 teams with Utah isn't the worst thing in the world. And keeping the Big "12" together with 10 teams would help Kansas and Missouri - which is a good thing. All things considered, this might be an OK option. Although,the new "super 16" would be cool to see in the Pac.

Plus, Texas is going to have to leave a lot of money on the table to stay with the big 12. Their share of the new TV network was projected in the $25+ mil range.

Not happening.

eta: I'd say less than 5% chance of happening. Texas isn't staying without B12 north adding a heavyweight to replace Nebraska, and if Texas goes, boom goes the dynamite.

The Fox deal that was proposed at the Big 12 meetings was supposedly pretty good -- it was on par with the SEC deal and would have put games on Fox, Fox Sports and FX. A good deal for Fox since they need some programming to beef up their football lineup, especially with the BCS games leaving for Disney.

Apparently Beebe has gotten Fox to step up to $17 million per team -- since it's only 10 teams now, Fox would be saving some money. Each school would also be allowed to participate in their own network. The projection is Texas could make $5 million per year on their own network. That means Texas would be getting a better deal than in the Pac 10 and the same as in the Big Ten -- except they get all the power and control.

If Beebe can pull it off, I would take back most of the bad things I said about him.

Plus, let's not forget the penalties Nebraska and Colorado owe. That's estimated to be at least $25 million total that would be shared by the other 10 schools.

Hold the presses:

Orangebloods.com - New proposal to save Big 12 with 10 teams being considered by UT (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803)

I thought Chip Brown had reported over and over again that Texas to the Pac-16 was a signed and done deal...oh wait, the infallible Chip Brown doesn't know what hes talking about? OH NOOOO, WHOEVER WOULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT??!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!

Not happening.

eta: I'd say less than 5% chance of happening. Texas isn't staying without B12 north adding a heavyweight to replace Nebraska, and if Texas goes, boom goes the dynamite.
Under the proposed plan there would be no North -- no divisions, everybody plays a 9-game schedule. Stoops and Brown both hate the championship game, so this would be exactly what they want.

I thought Chip Brown had reported over and over again that Texas to the Pac-16 was a signed and done deal...oh wait, the infallible Chip Brown doesn't know what hes talking about? OH NOOOO, WHOEVER WOULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT??!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!
Missouri's SB Nation called it best -- no one has been more right AND wrong in the past two weeks than Chip Brown.

If Texas becomes unattainable for the present, for whatever reason, would the Big Ten raid the Big East to try to force ND's hand? Or was all that talk basically a feint?

Under the proposed plan there would be no North -- no divisions, everybody plays a 9-game schedule. Stoops and Brown both hate the championship game, so this would be exactly what they want.north or not, Texas wants another heavyweight for them to stay.

The Big 12 merging with the MWC? Bleh. I don't like the Big 12 as a conference.

Under the proposed plan there would be no North -- no divisions, everybody plays a 9-game schedule. Stoops and Brown both hate the championship game, so this would be exactly what they want.

So if Brown, Stoops and Osborne all hated the idea of a championship game, how did the Big 12 wind up with one, again?

So if Brown, Stoops and Osborne all hated the idea of a championship game, how did the Big 12 wind up with one, again?
The university presidents and athletic directors are the ones that voted in the championship games. The coaches have little to no input on the matter.

I thought Chip Brown had reported over and over again that Texas to the Pac-16 was a signed and done deal...oh wait, the infallible Chip Brown doesn't know what hes talking about? OH NOOOO, WHOEVER WOULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT??!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!

Chip Brown has never said it was a signed deal

"My plan is about what's best for the citizens in this part of the country and for the student-athletes and not having this section of the country with all its major institutions connected to conferences that aren't even here. We shouldn't be a fly-over zone," Beebe told Orangebloods.com

The Pac-Ten hates America!! Why don't they want real Americans to have a conference of there own?

I gues patriotism really is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The university presidents and athletic directors are the ones that voted in the championship games. The coaches have little to no input on the matter.

I can see that for, say, Baylor or A&M. I have a hard time believing OU, Texas or Nebraska would shoo Stoops, Brown or Osborne out of the office when they came in to say "Guys, I don't think this is such a good idea."

Why would Texas, say, be willing to make Brown one of the highest paid coaches in the land, but not be willing to listen to him on matters that could directly impact the football program?

Agreed. Mizzou has been very reserved in any public comments. Anyone who insists otherwise is buying into the Texas-sourced PR blitz that has been pushed out there in recent days. They're just looking to offload the blame on the breakup of the conference on someone else, but they know exactly why it happened. MU and CU aren't the one trying to get out of paying the exit fees. NU and the South schools are.

So it was a Texas-sourced PR blitz that originally pushed Mizzou's name out there as a team to the Big 10? Or was it one of your "sources" that said Texas for some reason would only create a PR blitz towards Mizzou, which is still a member of the Big 12 as is Texas, and stay silent on Nebraska and Colorado?

Not happening.

eta: I'd say less than 5% chance of happening. Texas isn't staying without B12 north adding a heavyweight to replace Nebraska, and if Texas goes, boom goes the dynamite.

Nebraska was a heavyweight. Here's their record for the past 10 years:

<table class="wikitable" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1em 1em;"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ff6666"><th>Year</th> <th>Record</th> <th>Final AP Poll Ranking</th> </tr> <tr> <td>2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>10-4</td> <td>#14</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>9-4</td> <td>NR</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>5-7</td> <td>NR</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>9-5</td> <td>NR</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>8-4</td> <td>#24</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>5-6</td> <td>NR</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>10-3</td> <td>#18</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>7-7</td> <td>NR</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>11-2</td> <td>#7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Nebraska_Cornhuskers_football_team)</td> <td>10-2</td> <td>#7</td></tr></tbody></table>

Latest tweet from Chip Brown:

Texas A&M turned down invite to join P10 in mtg today with P10's Larry Scott and Kevin Weiberg in College Station, a Big 12 AD confirms.

Nebraska was a heavyweight.

Yep, and Texas wants another one to replace them.

Texas A&M declined PAC10 invite, apparently:

ChipBrownOB: Texas A&M turned down invite to join P10 in mtg today with P10's Larry Scott and Kevin Weiberg in College Station, a Big 12 AD confirms.

On to Kansas I guess

On to Kansas I guess

I'd prefer them over A&M. I think with their basketball program, they add more to the conference overall. Don't need A&M's market as long as we get Texas.

I'd prefer them over A&M. I think with their basketball program, they add more to the conference overall. Don't need A&M's market as long as we get Texas.

Oh, so do I.

I can see that for, say, Baylor or A&M. I have a hard time believing OU, Texas or Nebraska would shoo Stoops, Brown or Osborne out of the office when they came in to say "Guys, I don't think this is such a good idea."

Why would Texas, say, be willing to make Brown one of the highest paid coaches in the land, but not be willing to listen to him on matters that could directly impact the football program?
Because the coaches are thinking about wins and losses and not revenues and expenses. Athletic directors are essentially CEOs who are mostly thinking about promoting their product to bring the biggest revenues that they can muster. Two completely different perspectives.

On to Kansas I guess

I was really hoping Kansas and Missouri came to the Mountain West which would make a nice 12 team conference now that Boise State is in the fold.

Hold the presses:

Orangebloods.com - New proposal to save Big 12 with 10 teams being considered by UT (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803)

One thing that makes me shake my head is the Big 12's lack of response from their conference being torn apart. There were rumors of the Big Ten and Pac 10 looking at adding schools and the Big 12 comes across as just sitting there. Certainly initially. If the Big 12 does fall apart, they will only have themselves to blame.

Nebraska was a heavyweight. Here's their record for the past 10 years:

Note this is just for the past 10 years and is only about football. Add in them looking to turn things around(within a literal second of beating Texas) and I don't see how their performance during the past decade matters that much. This would be like Michigan continuing to struggle for 6-7 years and then somebody saying getting Michigan involved would be bad because they used to be a heavyweight. Using 'Bama as an example when the NCAA virtually lived on their front steps works well as another example.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Here is the current situation with Texas A&M (this comes from a board member through a 3rd party, to here):

The PAC10 offer wasn't official, and the "no thanks" wasn't official, but they happened. This will account for the people that will be saying "We did not turn down an offer to the PAC 10 today" and then citing someone official. It happened. Anything else in the media regarding this the rest of the day is fluff since everyone just went home until Monday morning.

Some sources talking to the Pac-10 don't think it is over yet with Texas A&M and that they may still take an offer.

Some sources talking to the Pac-10 don't think it is over yet with Texas A&M and that they may still take an offer.

Pac-10 going to offer again after just getting turned down?

So if Brown, Stoops and Osborne all hated the idea of a championship game, how did the Big 12 wind up with one, again?
Brown and Stoops weren't head coaches when the conference was formed and Osborne got outvoted 11-1.

I don't like the championship game when other conference don't do it. I think it puts you at a competitive disadvantage if you have one and some of your peers don't. I like the title game but would prefer it was all or none.

Pac-10 going to offer again after just getting turned down?

Nope, but your source could be wrong.

north or not, Texas wants another heavyweight for them to stay.
Curious, since I'm not aware of any source who has said Texas wants another "heavyweight" for them to stay, I'm assuming it's your assumption. Why would Texas want another power team? Why would they want MORE competition? Why would they want to split their pie with 11 teams instead of 12?

As for heavyweight, Missouri has won the same number of games as Nebraska since 2002.

Nope, but your source could be wrong.

I would be very surprised since he is talking directly to an A&M board member with confirmation from our board's mods.

Curious, since I'm not aware of any source who has said Texas wants another "heavyweight" for them to stay, I'm assuming it's your assumption. Why would Texas want another power team? Why would they want MORE competition? Why would they want to split their pie with 11 teams instead of 12?

As for heavyweight, Missouri has won the same number of games as Nebraska since 2002.

Honestly don't remember where this train of thought came from, but it wasn't my assumption. I'll concede since I don't have time to go backtracking on the hundred thousand things I've read today to find the source. Pretty sure it was accurate, though.

I do know the logic is that a conference with just them as a powerhouse is much weaker than the other big conferences with several powerhouses.

Curious, since I'm not aware of any source who has said Texas wants another "heavyweight" for them to stay, I'm assuming it's your assumption. Why would Texas want another power team? Why would they want MORE competition? Why would they want to split their pie with 11 teams instead of 12?

As for heavyweight, Missouri has won the same number of games as Nebraska since 2002.

I would think that a team might want another powerhouse to raise the conference's SOS to better enable a path to the National Championship Game each year. I know that is why some Pac-10 fans want Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Whoever wins the Pac-16 (if it happens) is going to almost be guaranteed a National Championship berth most years.

Moving the Pac-10 to 12 teams with Utah isn't the worst thing in the world.
I'd be seriously bummed if the Pac-10 only expanded to 12, as it would make for difficult scheduling decisions that would inevitably leave a lot of teams unhappy. If the choice were to stick with 10 or expand to 12, I'd prefer sticking with 10. But too late now...unless we boot WSU.

j/k, that's not going to happen...

I would think that a team might want another powerhouse to raise the conference's SOS to better enable a path to the National Championship Game each year. I know that is why some Pac-10 fans want Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Whoever wins the Pac-16 (if it happens) is going to almost be guaranteed a National Championship berth most years.
I don't know. Texas didn't have another powerhouse in conference last year and scheduled rather embarassing out-of-conference opponents and still got in.

Since the BCS is more about perception and not results, I think they would be fine winning any major conference since their name is Texas. In fact, I'd want a conference that didn't have another powerhouse that had to be beaten to get in.

Looks like KU is getting a personal visit from Larry Scott.

FlightAware > N228PK (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N228PK)

(Of course, as my friend pointed out: It's also been to Salt Lake City in the past two days)

I honestly don't know how valid this info is, but supposedly Larry Scott's plane is leaving Austin and headed for Kansas City later tonight. It should also be known that Scott's plane has recently been in Salt Lake City (this past Friday). So who knows what's going on. But it's looking like Texas A&M is heading to the SEC.

Doh, you beat me to it Sooner.

I don't know. Texas didn't have another powerhouse in conference last year and scheduled rather embarassing out-of-conference opponents and still got in.

Since the BCS is more about perception and not results, I think they would be fine winning any major conference since their name is Texas. In fact, I'd want a conference that didn't have another powerhouse that had to be beaten to get in.

I actually agree with the premise of "easier to get to the BCS title game" being potentially more desirable to a coach or fan. However, consolidation = power and money. That's why all the conferences are expanding. Ensuring that your conference will have huge TV deals (and the steady revenue check that comes with it) is worth much more to an AD than easiest path to the BCS, otherwise everybody would be trying to mimic the old ACC setup of FSU and the seven dwarves (or Miami's similar setup in the old Big East) rather than abandoning those.

The Big 12 needed the serious threat of disbandment to squeeze $17 mill per team out of Fox. To me, that means the Pac 16, expanded SEC and expanded Big Ten will/would be able to squeeze that much more out of their TV deals, and with the concentration of name brand teams in fewer hands, it gives those conferences even more leverage.

The Texas A&M rivals page is now saying "barring the unforseen or political activity" the Aggies will join the SEC.

The Big Score: A&M goes it alone (http://tamu.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093875)

"barring . . . political activity"

Heh. Not that I blame them, but that's more than a little bit of CYA there.

I was really hoping Kansas and Missouri came to the Mountain West which would make a nice 12 team conference now that Boise State is in the fold.

Can we bring our little brother (K-State) and our wacky neighbor (Iowa State)? I'd feel bad about leaving them out in the cold. I think Baylor's out of our hands, tho, with the TCU-Baylor dynamic. But if I really want to look at best case, I'd love to pick up all 5 Big XII orphans and take Memphis up on their offer. They're about 400 miles due south of Columbia, would add some nice cash with that bowl offer, and bring some basketball clout with them.

EDIT: And while I'm dreaming, I want a pony!

SI

I'm assuming you'd be OK leaving the little brother and wacky neighbor behind to join the Pac-16?

Looks like KU is getting a personal visit from Larry Scott.

FlightAware > N228PK (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N228PK)

(Of course, as my friend pointed out: It's also been to Salt Lake City in the past two days)

KCI is also the airport for K-State and Mizzou.

It's also been to Lubbock (Texas Tech), Waco (Baylor), and Oklahoma City (Oklahoma State/Oklahoma).

And if your REALLY paranoid, it also touched down in Huntsville (Sam Houston St), and was originally scheduled to go to San Marcos (Texas State), but decided to go to Austin instead.

KCI is also the airport for K-State and Mizzou.

It's also been to Lubbock (Texas Tech), Waco (Baylor), and Oklahoma City (Oklahoma State/Oklahoma).

And if your REALLY paranoid, it also touched down in Huntsville (Sam Houston St), and was originally scheduled to go to San Marcos (Texas State), but decided to go to Austin instead.

Texas is going to show just how much clout they have, and bring along Sam Houston State to the PAC-10+ if A&M goes to the SEC.

:D

So if Texas and A&M really go to separate leagues, does the rivalry die?

So if Texas and A&M really go to separate leagues, does the rivalry die?

I wouldn't think so. There is a big chunk of the A&M traditions that are put downs of some sort towards Texas. It is a huge part of their culture. Texas and Oklahoma are huge rivals, and they weren't in the same conference for the first 70 or so years of their rivalry.

I'm assuming you'd be OK leaving the little brother and wacky neighbor behind to join the Pac-16?

I'd really want to do everything I could to help them find a home, first, if possible. Again, this is like what kcchief19 said the other day- being on the wrong side of this thing just feels awful and is a death knell of sorts, or at least a big step down, to the schools involved. I'd rather sacrifice a little of my cache to help them out a lot if it comes down to that. I'm sure that's not how Lew will see things.

SI

So if Texas and A&M really go to separate leagues, does the rivalry die?

I wouldn't think so. There is a big chunk of the A&M traditions that are put downs of some sort towards Texas. It is a huge part of their culture. Texas and Oklahoma are huge rivals, and they weren't in the same conference for the first 70 or so years of their rivalry.

I just had an thought. Now that Nebraska and Oklahoma are not in the same conference any more, do you think they might try to restart their annual game since they're no longer subject to the conference schedule? What made me think of it was visiting Nebraska and Colorado blog sites and noting the Buffs fans in particular were sad to see the Nebraska-Colorado series possibly coming to an end, which puzzled me since there's nothing stopping them from scheduling it as a non-conference game. Only now did I think about the possibility of Nebraska-Oklahoma being revived as an annual series, though. Would either school go for it?

Pac-10 going to offer again after just getting turned down?

Sources also said that Missouri was a done deal and that the PAC-10 was dumb for going after Texas after they turned down the Big-10 (the first time)

Interesting ... Missouri curators are meeting, mostly by teleconference. Among those not in the room -- Missouri AD Mike Alden, who is on the conference call. Wonder where Mr. Alden is? KC? Salt Lake City? Austin?

Rumors on the Utah board is that Utah has an offer to the PAC-10

I just had an thought. Now that Nebraska and Oklahoma are not in the same conference any more, do you think they might try to restart their annual game since they're no longer subject to the conference schedule? What made me think of it was visiting Nebraska and Colorado blog sites and noting the Buffs fans in particular were sad to see the Nebraska-Colorado series possibly coming to an end, which puzzled me since there's nothing stopping them from scheduling it as a non-conference game. Only now did I think about the possibility of Nebraska-Oklahoma being revived as an annual series, though. Would either school go for it?
My guess is that for the next few years the only team that will have a good relationship with Nebraska is Colorado. I think the rest of the conference wants Nebraska to drop dead.

I dunno...there might some other teams that dont mind, especially if the money is there

My guess is that for the next few years the only team that will have a good relationship with Nebraska is Colorado. I think the rest of the conference wants Nebraska to drop dead.

I doubt Texas cares. Texas is probably happy both schools left since it has let them do whatever it is they want to do.

I doubt Texas cares. Texas is probably happy both schools left since it has let them do whatever it is they want to do.
But the status quo was what Texas wanted, hence the ultimatum given to Nebraska to crap or get off the pot. Texas was "on the plane" with the Big 12. The didn't want this but will do whatever is in their best interest.

But the status quo was what Texas wanted, hence the ultimatum given to Nebraska to crap or get off the pot. Texas was "on the plane" with the Big 12. The didn't want this but will do whatever is in their best interest.

Yes but regardless now of whatever outcome, Nebraska and Colorado leaving has guaranteed Texas more money.

Sources also said that Missouri was a done deal and that the PAC-10 was dumb for going after Texas after they turned down the Big-10 (the first time)

Sources like chip brown also said Texas and A&M to the Pac 10 was a done deal :lol:

I'm not sure what's funnier to me...all the crazy conference switching happening in college football...or all the juvenile, dick-measuring, "my source is better than your source" posting here in this thread.

Hey, I'm just trying to post information. No problem, though, you guys can just find the shit without my input.

My comment wasn't aimed at (just) you.

Sources like chip brown also said Texas and A&M to the Pac 10 was a done deal :lol:

I don't think he said that.

Interesting ... Missouri curators are meeting, mostly by teleconference. Among those not in the room -- Missouri AD Mike Alden, who is on the conference call. Wonder where Mr. Alden is? KC? Salt Lake City? Austin?

On his knees in front of Jim Delaney?

So who's jet is that that you guys are tracking?

Rumors on the Utah board is that Utah has an offer to the PAC-10

I think that was a strong possibility at one time, but I believe Texas will lobby for Kansas over Utah if A&M doesn't come around.

(Not saying it's right or wrong but, out of curiosity, why would Texas lobby for us?)

EDIT: I guess there's a scenario out there where Mizzou gets to the Big 10, KU to the Pac 10, and that leaves only ISU, KSU, and Baylor to reject the breaking up of the Big XII but that seems far afield as if Texas spurns the Big 10, why would they help Texas out and take Mizzou?

SI

--deleted drama llama posts--

sorry

Drama llama? Actually, that's kindof funny. Hadn't heard it before but it appears to be a popular meme on teh interwebs.

SI

Ok, here's my crazy new MWC scenario laid out. It has no chance in hell of happening due to a couple of major issues:
1)Baylor-TCU spat
2)There are probably a couple of parties- namely Mizzou, Kansas, and Utah- who might have better options out there and might act on those
3)The MWC might see a better candidate in some pool of Nevada, Fresno State, Houston, UTEP, SMU, or Tulsa than I listed above
4)Memphis will look at this and say "hey, we said a BCS conference but we didn't mean this frankenstein mess"

But I still like fleshing it out all the same. So here are the dominoes falling:

The Texas 6 is now whittled down to the Texas 5 as the Pac-10 already has Colorado. So, Texas, Tech, A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State come on board. So there's your Pac 16. If A&M goes to the SEC, the Pac-10 might want Utah so, again, another possible pitfall.

The Big 10 keeps slow playing, trying to get Notre Dame and expand their footprint east, taking a giant chomp out of the Big East and forcing Notre Dame to play ball. So, in other words, nothing changes.

That way the Big XII is left with 5- Kansas, Mizzou, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor. They reach an agreement with the MWC to absorb them but some sort of power sharing occurs where everyone is magically happy with their new station in life including both conference presidents, etc (yeah, that'll happen).

Then, with one spot remaining, they offer to Memphis to get their FedEx money and to help the conference in basketball. It doesn't really stretch the geography of the conference much as they're pretty much due south of Columbia, Mo. This way the conference gets a $16M windfall from the new bowl, aka $1M apiece and the bowl now is tied into the conference, something that the Big XII really never had except sortof the Fiesta Bowl. Hell, you really want to stick it to Texas, elevate the Cotton Bowl to just rub it in their face.

Then you come calling for the abandonment fees from the old Big XII schools, which is roughly $10~$20M per school. Now, counting 7 schools at, let's say, $16M apiece to make it easy (since we're splitting it 16 ways), that's $7M in free cash to help improve facilities at some of the "lesser" schools. That can go a long way to help bump up some programs.

Then, you put pen to paper and draw it up. It's probably going to look like this. The notations are are football ranking, bowl/no bowl, basketball ranking, tourney/no tourney from last year.

East:
--/NB/#1/To Kansas
--/Bw/#7/To Kansas State
--/Bw/--/To Mizzou
--/Bw/--/NT Iowa State
--/NB/19/To Baylor
--/--/--/To Memphis
#6/Bo/--/NT TCU
--/NB/#8/To New Mexico

West:
#4/Bo/--/NT Boise St
12/Bo/17/To BYU
18/Bo/--/NT Utah
--/Bo/--/NT Air Force
--/Bo/--/NT Wyoming
--/NB/--/To UNLV
--/NB/--/To SDSU
--/NB/--/NT Colorado St

So, of the 16 teams- everyone except Colorado State either made a bowl game or the NCAA tourney or both including some really high basketball seeds and a couple of BCS bowls. It's not a bad group at the end of the day and there are a lot of built in advantages out there.

SI

Ok, here's my crazy new MWC scenario laid out. It has no chance in hell of happening due to a couple of major issues:
1)Baylor-TCU spat
2)There are probably a couple of parties- namely Mizzou, Kansas, and Utah- who might have better options out there and might act on those
3)The MWC might see a better candidate in some pool of Nevada, Fresno State, Houston, UTEP, SMU, or Tulsa than I listed above
4)Memphis will look at this and say "hey, we said a BCS conference but we didn't mean this frankenstein mess"

But I still like fleshing it out all the same. So here are the dominoes falling:

The Texas 6 is now whittled down to the Texas 5 as the Pac-10 already has Colorado. So, Texas, Tech, A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State come on board. So there's your Pac 16. If A&M goes to the SEC, the Pac-10 might want Utah so, again, another possible pitfall.

The Big 10 keeps slow playing, trying to get Notre Dame and expand their footprint east, taking a giant chomp out of the Big East and forcing Notre Dame to play ball. So, in other words, nothing changes.

That way the Big XII is left with 5- Kansas, Mizzou, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor. They reach an agreement with the MWC to absorb them but some sort of power sharing occurs where everyone is magically happy with their new station in life including both conference presidents, etc (yeah, that'll happen).

Then, with one spot remaining, they offer to Memphis to get their FedEx money and to help the conference in basketball. It doesn't really stretch the geography of the conference much as they're pretty much due south of Columbia, Mo. This way the conference gets a $16M windfall from the new bowl, aka $1M apiece and the bowl now is tied into the conference, something that the Big XII really never had except sortof the Fiesta Bowl. Hell, you really want to stick it to Texas, elevate the Cotton Bowl to just rub it in their face.

Then you come calling for the abandonment fees from the old Big XII schools, which is roughly $10~$20M per school. Now, counting 7 schools at, let's say, $16M apiece to make it easy (since we're splitting it 16 ways), that's $7M in free cash to help improve facilities at some of the "lesser" schools. That can go a long way to help bump up some programs.

Then, you put pen to paper and draw it up. It's probably going to look like this. The notations are are football ranking, bowl/no bowl, basketball ranking, tourney/no tourney from last year.

East:
--/NB/#1/To Kansas
--/Bw/#7/To Kansas State
--/Bw/--/To Mizzou
--/Bw/--/NT Iowa State
--/NB/19/To Baylor
--/--/--/To Memphis
#6/Bo/--/NT TCU
--/NB/#8/To New Mexico

West:
#4/Bo/--/NT Boise St
12/Bo/17/To BYU
18/Bo/--/NT Utah
--/Bo/--/NT Air Force
--/Bo/--/NT Wyoming
--/NB/--/To UNLV
--/NB/--/To SDSU
--/NB/--/NT Colorado St

So, of the 16 teams- everyone except Colorado State either made a bowl game or the NCAA tourney or both including some really high basketball seeds and a couple of BCS bowls. It's not a bad group at the end of the day and there are a lot of built in advantages out there.

SI

KU, MU, KSU, and ISU would take a huge hit when it comes to revenue. The MWC makes about $2 million per team now. You add the Big 12 leftovers and you might get up to $5 million per team. Compare to the other BCS conferences who have the ability to make $15-$20 million then you can see where the problem lies. So basically the MWC would have a BCS bid, but would pretty much be a mid-major when it comes to revenue.

Plus we know MU has had wandering eyes so how long do they stay in the conference? If you throw out the tv revenue the MWC would actually be a very solid conference. But sadly tv revenue is now a major player.

Interesting ... Missouri curators are meeting, mostly by teleconference. Among those not in the room -- Missouri AD Mike Alden, who is on the conference call. Wonder where Mr. Alden is? KC? Salt Lake City? Austin?

If he's smart, Alden is on the phone with the SEC or the Big Ten.

What the_meanstrosity said.

At best, it would be a one-year windfall for the MWC (and even that might be stretching the term).

Long-term, it wouldn't come close to the other BCS conferences. There just isn't the right mix of a) market sizes and b) out-of-market passion with the teams you'd have there.

While all this is going down, Texas A&M's AD has been on vacation in Idaho.

Who goes on vacation to Idaho?

Who goes on vacation to Idaho?

I can only think of people who love putting on floating greens.

But the status quo was what Texas wanted, hence the ultimatum given to Nebraska to crap or get off the pot. Texas was "on the plane" with the Big 12. The didn't want this but will do whatever is in their best interest.

I think that's bull. I think Texas knew that Nebraska would leave, since it made so much sense, and used it as the way to get their own way, by saying, Hey we tried, and then bolt for more $$$ and do what you want to do. One or two teams leaving did not affects the Big 12 that much - just see the Big East from a few years ago that came back from many of their teams leaving, and this would still have Ok and Texas. If they issued the ultimatum, then they are responsible for the fall, not Nebraska, mot Missouri and Not Colorado.

So who's jet is that that you guys are tracking?

Larry Scott (PAC-10 Commish)
Pat Kilkenny - Oregon Booster and former interim Oregon AD and Nike guy

While all this is going down, Texas A&M's AD has been on vacation in Idaho.

Who goes on vacation to Idaho?

On Friday I agreed to an interview with U of Idaho for a job.

On Friday I agreed to an interview with U of Idaho for a job.

If you get it, make sure to go out of state for your vacations.

;)

Idaho is actually a nice state to visit if you like being outdoors with a lot of space

I met Idaho once, and, as I remarked to someone afterwards, 'tis a pity she's a whore.

Idaho is actually a nice state to visit if you like being outdoors with a lot of space

I'll second this. My wife's cousin lived there for a while and we went out there for her wedding. Enjoyed the trip a lot.

OK, guys. I was joking about Idaho. Hell, I would say the same thing about probably 35 other states, including my own. I agree it's cool (but I've only been through it once), but it seems like a bizarre side-note in this whole thing.

I mean, your school is going through some massively future-altering decisions here, and you are unable to drag yourself back...from Idaho? I could see Aruba or hell even New Zealand.

Maybe it only seems bizarre to me.

OK, guys. I was joking about Idaho. Hell, I would say the same thing about probably 35 other states, including my own. I agree it's cool (but I've only been through it once), but it seems like a bizarre side-note in this whole thing.

I mean, your school is going through some massively future-altering decisions here, and you are unable to drag yourself back...from Idaho? I could see Aruba or hell even New Zealand.

Maybe it only seems bizarre to me.

I'd agree with you if I thought AD's were really that involved in this decision. At most (all?) schools, the negotiations are above them. However, for appearances, I agree that the AD should have ended his vacation early.

monsterfacepalm.jpg
this could really fuck everything up royally

ChipBrownOB (https://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB) (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/)
Here is the latest bombshell in college realignment: Texas willing to commit to 10-member Big 12

monsterfacepalm.jpg
this could really fuck everything up royally

ChipBrownOB (https://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB) (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/)
Here is the latest bombshell in college realignment: Texas willing to commit to 10-member Big 12

What that tweet from the Texas Minister of Information does not tell you is the terms that Texas would need to agree to that arrangement. I'm surprised Chip left that out. :rolleyes:

If anything, that gives you a clear indication that, much like ND in the Big Ten, A&M is currently holding the ball and not Texas. I'm sure the Aggies are loving that, but things can change quickly as we have seen.

What that tweet from the Texas Minister of Information does not tell you is the terms that Texas would need to agree to that arrangement. I'm surprised Chip left that out. :rolleyes:

If anything, that gives you a clear indication that, much like ND in the Big Ten, A&M is currently holding the ball and not Texas. I'm sure the Aggies are loving that, but things can change quickly as we have seen.

lol

Smells like a bluff to me. I think A&M goes anyway. This should be an interesting day.

Smells like a bluff to me. I think A&M goes anyway. This should be an interesting day.

I agree with that. I don't think A&M will end up being the one to decide where things fall even though they have that opportunity right now.

Idaho is actually a nice state to visit if you like being outdoors with a lot of space

I was in Boise twice for training. I found it to be a pleasant city

SI

Maybe the bluff failed?

From Joe Schad:

The departure of Texas, Texas Tech, OU and OSU to Pac-10 is imminent, four Big 12 sources say

I think Texas wants to leave, but I think they also want to be able to blame others for the breakup of the Big 12. With this latest release, they can now say "We tried to save the conference at the 11th hour, but A&M wouldn't go for it."

As the board's resident Idahoan, I do feel I should say my peace.

Idaho is very likely better than your state.

We have a liberal, livable, beautiful capital with a very low cost of living; spectacular mountains, lakes, and outdoor whathaveyou; and also superstar A-list celebrity luxury (Hanks, Schwarzenegger, and Bruce Willis, just to name three, spend a ton of time in Sun Valley). It's a great vacation spot if you either like the outdoors, or are silly rich.

Here's Joe Schad's article to follow up that tweet. Texas' decision is expected no later than tomorrow.

Sources: Texas' Pac-10 commitment imminent - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5284375)

Here's Joe Schad's article to follow up that tweet. Texas' decision is expected no later than tomorrow.

Sources: Texas' Pac-10 commitment imminent - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5284375)

Yeah I think tomorrow is when they are scheduled to vote. I think things get interesting before that because A&M's vote is today.

What that tweet from the Texas Minister of Information does not tell you is the terms that Texas would need to agree to that arrangement. I'm surprised Chip left that out. :rolleyes:

If anything, that gives you a clear indication that, much like ND in the Big Ten, A&M is currently holding the ball and not Texas. I'm sure the Aggies are loving that, but things can change quickly as we have seen.

You understand there are character limits on tweets and the purpose is to drive you to the Orangebloods website for details, right?

Where you might find the second sub-heading to be, "Your Move Texas A&M."

Texas is just leaving too much cash on the table to say with the big 12. The latest report out here is that they will be bringing in $25-27 million once the new Pac-10 network plus other efforts by Scott start. Then you add in the prestige of being part of UCLA/USC/Stanford/Cal/+ for research/prestige and Texas is gaining a lot by joining.

I think Texas wants to leave, but I think they also want to be able to blame others for the breakup of the Big 12. With this latest release, they can now say "We tried to save the conference at the 11th hour, but A&M wouldn't go for it."

That's been their intent the whole time. Stewart Mandel over at Sports Illustrated summed it up pretty well......

So to recap, if Big 12 crumbles, it has been/will be Neb/Mizzou/A&M's fault. NOT the school at center of Pac-16 plan. (Eye roll)

Orangebloods.com - Sources say Texas will commit to 10-member Big 12 (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094038)

OK, just so I understand, Texas is going to pass on a plan by Larry Scott that will get them roughly $25-27 million starting in year 1 with the Pac-16, top dog status in football for the Pac (given USC's issues) and association with much better research/academic institution (primarily the Cali Schools) for a package of:

1. $14-17 mil annually.
2. A one time payment of $2 million from Colorado/Nebraska leaving
3. the ability to start their own network - which could net them $3-4 million 3 years down the road.

So, in years 1-4 with the Pac-16, Texas makes $100 million. With the Big 12, they make roughly $70-75 million at best (assuming their network and the Big 12 plan maxes out). The dollars just don't add up. All the while this whole plan could fall apart in the next 2 years if Missouri gets invited to the Big 10 or A&M to the SEC (both would also get bigtime raises in cash).

This smells like Texas feeding information to Chip Brown to make it look like they did their best to stay together and make A&M the bad guy (once they accept the SEC bid today). This way Texas can defend what happens with A&M and Baylor by saying they wanted to stay in the Big 12 but A&M bailed.

Texas is just leaving too much cash on the table to say with the big 12. The latest report out here is that they will be bringing in $25-27 million once the new Pac-10 network plus other efforts by Scott start. Then you add in the prestige of being part of UCLA/USC/Stanford/Cal/+ for research/prestige and Texas is gaining a lot by joining.

Absolutely. The new Pac-10(16?) network is going to be huge with that spread of markets. The network is the part of the deal that is the most exciting for me.

Why do schools care about being blamed for the destruction of these conferences? Does anyone really give a shit?

Joe Schad vs. Chip Brown! RT @schadjoe The departure of Texas, Texas Tech, OU & OSU to Pac-10 is imminent, four Big 12 sources say
half a minute ago via web

I wonder if Texas would rather get 17 million per year while the rest of the conference would get 12 million per year. The only team with a spine was Nebraska and they are out of the picture.

I think Texas is forcing TAMU to be the bad guy in this group but if they still a conference with ten teams, they won't have a CCG and all Texas needs to do is beat Oklahoma and they are in the NC

Why do schools care about being blamed for the destruction of these conferences? Does anyone really give a shit?

Really - a conference is just a collection of schools. The conference is 100% absolutely meaningless without the schools.

Why do schools care about being blamed for the destruction of these conferences? Does anyone really give a shit?

They are worried about potential lawsuits (The Big East sued the ACC and got at least some concessions), and I've also heard people say that the schools know congress is watching and potentially getting involved, so they are conscious of who gets blamed for what. I don't know what congress would do, though, really. They should give a congressional medal of "Sorry, dudes." to Iowa State.

The only team with a spine was Nebraska and they are out of the picture.

I don't know about that. The only team with a spine is Colorado. They exited without any bitching about how it was everyone's fault and has not given any indication that they will try to avoid any penalties that are triggered by their departure.

Nebraska complained out the door that it was everyone else's fault that they were forced to move and is threatening to go to court to avoid any penalties. They also took some heavy shots at the South and Texas on the way out. Regardless of whether NU was right in some of their accusations, Colorado showed everyone the professional way to move to a different conference.

Well, Colorado has always wanted to be in the PAC-10, with or without anyone else.

I wonder if Oklahoma could jump to the PAC-10 (with Ok State)

Nice back-pedal by CB. Now Texas is committed....to coming to the table to see if they can make Beebe's plan work.

lol

I think that was his intent. He's obviously being told whatever Texas wants him to say and if Texas is "committed" to the Big-10, TAMU leaving would be on them at this point and gives Texas unbelievable leverage (with Kansas IMO) about the dollar amount if they stick together as the Big-10

I wish we could flash forward through the Texas is staying in the Big 12/going to the Pac 10 and A&M is staying in the Big 12/going to the SEC that is going to take place for the next 48-hours and get on with the results.

As much as I hate the ACC for the raid on the Big East, at least the ACC and three departing teams were willing to follow through with the plan and admit their intentions.

They are worried about potential lawsuits (The Big East sued the ACC and got at least some concessions), and I've also heard people say that the schools know congress is watching and potentially getting involved, so they are conscious of who gets blamed for what. I don't know what congress would do, though, really. They should give a congressional medal of "Sorry, dudes." to Iowa State.

There's also the impact of national perception, which is never a 100% absolute slamdunk to predict. That gets into merchandise sales, TV marketability, sponsorships, and other revenue sources.

From Hornsfans:

Chip Brown on Tim Brando radio
-Texas trying to see if A&M is gone
-Chip says he will stick to his sources & Texas is staying in the Big 12. He heard Joe Scad but sticks with his sources
- would happen today
-tv network made assurance to Don Beebe that they want Big 12(10). network realized that colorado & nebraska happened so fast they had to move now doesn't want to lose out & will overpay.
-brando thinks schad report is a smokescreen for ESPN for not having to go against Fox pac-16 in a tv deal.
Chip Brown agrees
- Chip thinks Longhorn Network worth 3-5 additional rev.
-puts Texas at 22-25 million total tv revnue if stay in Big 12 & keep Longhorn network.

OK, just so I understand, Texas is going to pass on a plan by Larry Scott that will get them roughly $25-27 million starting in year 1 with the Pac-16, top dog status in football for the Pac (given USC's issues) and association with much better research/academic institution (primarily the Cali Schools) for a package of:

1. $14-17 mil annually.
2. A one time payment of $2 million from Colorado/Nebraska leaving
3. the ability to start their own network - which could net them $3-4 million 3 years down the road.

I highlighted year 1 because that's the significant issue year -- Texas wouldn't get $25-27 million in year one. First, the Pac 10's current deal with Fox runs through 2012, so you're not talking about getting money under a new deal until the 2012-2013 school year. Secondly, the Pac 10 network doesn't exist. It would take at least a year before the network could debut, and more likely wouldn't debut until 2012 when the Fox deal ends. Thirdly, any network requires startup costs and it's unlikely a Pac 10 network would be profitable for at least 3 years, maybe more.

So you're really talking about getting those revenues in year four or five, if those numbers hold up. The Pac 10 is basing its assumptions it can get $200-$250 million per year from a network AND start it's own network. That combination is unlikely.

From a financial standpoint, moving to the Pac 10 wouldn't pay dividends for 3-4 years. So why not stand pat, let the other Pac 10 schools deal with getting the network launched and see where you're at then?

Plus, don't forget to subtract the $16 million or so Texas would owe to the Big 12 in penalties for bailing on the league.

Geez if you think the Big Ten network has a dearth of content, just wait until the Longhorn Network premieres. Yuk.

Who is Texas going to pay the penalties to?

It is my understanding that the Big 12 schools can vote to disband the conference, rather than paying penalties.

Does anyone know the number of schools? Does it just have to be greater than 50% or are there other rules?

The conjecture I've seen in a number of places this weekend is that Beebe's pitch to the Big 12 Lite and the south schools is that all you have to do is stand pat and outlast the Big East and you're golden. The theory is that if Notre Dame goes to the Big Ten, the Big East is going down the tubes and that's when the Big 12 can jump and expand to make sure they remain one of the 16-team super conferences.

There was also talk on sports radio in KC this morning that Arkansas may be interesting in leaving the SEC for the Big 12 if the gang sticks together, especially if Big 12 revenues go up. I know from my Arkansas friends and spending some time down there that while they enjoy the money, they feel like they've never been a part of the SEC and are nostalgic for the rivalries of the old SWC days with Texas and OU. Arkansas would be a great fit. Be interesting if A&M leaves if the Big 12 decides to make a hail mary grab for Arkansas.

It is my understanding that the Big 12 schools can vote to disband the conference, rather than paying penalties.

Does anyone know the number of schools? Does it just have to be greater than 50% or are there other rules?

It supposedly would've taken a vote of 9. I'm not sure if/how that changes since a couple of teams have left.

Edit to add: I guess technically they are still in the Big 12 for now, so I assume it would still take a vote of 9.

It is my understanding that the Big 12 schools can vote to disband the conference, rather than paying penalties.

Does anyone know the number of schools? Does it just have to be greater than 50% or are there other rules?
Unclear. The Big 12 by-laws require a super majority for everything (9 votes). That means that as long as four schools are left out and vote no on disbanding, the league isn't going anywhere. That's where the Big 12 absorbing the MWC enters in to the picture with as many as seven schools paying penalties to the remaing five.

However, there have been some claims that since the Big 12 corporation is based on Delaware, Delaware law allows you to dissolve a corporate with a majority vote. In that case, if seven schools vote to dissolve, there may be no penalties.

Then the lawsuits start.

The conjecture I've seen in a number of places this weekend is that Beebe's pitch to the Big 12 Lite and the south schools is that all you have to do is stand pat and outlast the Big East and you're golden. The theory is that if Notre Dame goes to the Big Ten, the Big East is going down the tubes and that's when the Big 12 can jump and expand to make sure they remain one of the 16-team super conferences.

There was also talk on sports radio in KC this morning that Arkansas may be interesting in leaving the SEC for the Big 12 if the gang sticks together, especially if Big 12 revenues go up. I know from my Arkansas friends and spending some time down there that while they enjoy the money, they feel like they've never been a part of the SEC and are nostalgic for the rivalries of the old SWC days with Texas and OU. Arkansas would be a great fit. Be interesting if A&M leaves if the Big 12 decides to make a hail mary grab for Arkansas.

I know the reports you are citing about Arkansas and they were instantly discredited. Basically, the report is that Arkansas "informally inquired" about the new Big 12. All this basically means is we probably called and ask them where the eff they are getting their numbers. It does not in any way indicate interest on either party's part.

The rest is nonsense. No one in Arkansas wants to leave the SEC and it isn't happening.

By my estimation;

No - Baylor, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, KSU
Yes - Nebraska, Texas, TAMU, TTU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

I guess to save the other members some serious cash, the PAC-10 would offer Kansas

Wouldn't that still only add up to 8 of the 9 needed votes?

SI

Been out of town for a week to Yellowstone and the whole world fell apart. First of all after visiting the Wyoming/Montana/Idaho area for the first time I can absolutely see why somebody would want to vacation there. I can't wait to get back. Second (and I don't have the time to read through the past 400 posts to see if any Mizzou fans said this) but Mizzou fans have nothing to bitch about. They could give two shits about ISU, KSU, or even KU when the "greener" pastures of the big 10 were calling. So now we are on the outside looking in? Karma. That said I hope the big 12-2 stays together. We have upgraded basketball termendously and if we could have a schedule where we get to play OU, OSU, and Texas every year I would love it. I see no upside to the Mountain West or the SEC unless we are forced to go there. Nothing against the SEC, it is the elite football conference, I would just rather play traditional rivals than SEC schools.

And to those who don't understand Texas looking out for #1, welcome to reality. To me they are the new Notre Dame of college sports.

Wouldn't that still only add up to 8 of the 9 needed votes?

SI

WEll...Missouri is gonna be in the Big-10, no? :)

You need 5 members to continue a conference. The Big-12 wouldn't have the required amount to be a viable conference so I dont think that would matter anymore.

The conjecture I've seen in a number of places this weekend is that Beebe's pitch to the Big 12 Lite and the south schools is that all you have to do is stand pat and outlast the Big East and you're golden. The theory is that if Notre Dame goes to the Big Ten, the Big East is going down the tubes and that's when the Big 12 can jump and expand to make sure they remain one of the 16-team super conferences.

The problem with this theory, again, is that Notre Dame leaving won't cause the Big East to go down the tubes...the Big East going down the tubes would cause Notre Dame to leave. And the BE isn't breaking up until at least two schools get pulled, and that's not going to happen until the ACC comes calling because the SEC came calling for some of those schools. The only way I see that changing is if the Big Ten tried forcing ND's hand by, for example, grabbing Rutgers and Syracuse now and hoping that the BE doesn't reach out to some of the Big 12 schools to replace them quickly. The problem with this is that it eliminates the ability to round out the current 12 team format with both Texas and ND and go no further. It's extremely unlikely to happen, but the Big 10 isn't in the position where they need to make any move now.

I highlighted year 1 because that's the significant issue year -- Texas wouldn't get $25-27 million in year one. First, the Pac 10's current deal with Fox runs through 2012, so you're not talking about getting money under a new deal until the 2012-2013 school year. Secondly, the Pac 10 network doesn't exist. It would take at least a year before the network could debut, and more likely wouldn't debut until 2012 when the Fox deal ends. Thirdly, any network requires startup costs and it's unlikely a Pac 10 network would be profitable for at least 3 years, maybe more.

So you're really talking about getting those revenues in year four or five, if those numbers hold up. The Pac 10 is basing its assumptions it can get $200-$250 million per year from a network AND start it's own network. That combination is unlikely.

From a financial standpoint, moving to the Pac 10 wouldn't pay dividends for 3-4 years. So why not stand pat, let the other Pac 10 schools deal with getting the network launched and see where you're at then?

Plus, don't forget to subtract the $16 million or so Texas would owe to the Big 12 in penalties for bailing on the league.

I thought these moves wouldn't happen until the 2011 or 2012 season?

That would give the Pac 10 enough time to launch and run the network and you would have just one or two years left on the FOX deal.

If the Big 12 can get Texas 20+ million and allow them their own network, that would pretty much match the Pac-10. I'm curious if OU and OSU would get the same deal?

If not, the Pac 10 could still offer them - thereby forcing Texas to come as well.

Geezus, what incentive does Oklahoma have to stay in that conference? Texas Athletes already make a ton of money as it is and they'd be leaving the rest of the conference in the dust further?

I guess it hinges on TAMU at this point

I basically see 2 possibilities for what is really happening right now:

1. The Texas mouth piece (Chip Brown) is hard selling the Big 12 staying together story so this can be blamed on A&M when they go to the SEC.

2. Texas is legitimately freaking out at the threat of A&M heading to the SEC and scrambling to keep their minions under control by keeping the Big 12 together.

If the big 12 commish sells his soul to keep Texas, why should OU stay? Both will be making the same in the Pac-10/16 (~$25 mil). So, Texas uses the Pac-10 play to go from $15-17 mil to $24 mil - all the while OU gets nothing.

Larry Scott knows this and I would expect him to start playing the huge windfall that OU/OSU would get in the pac-10 against the big 12. The reality is that if OU/OSU leave, A&M will leave and so (eventually) will Texas.

Arles, that's about right. Even if the Big-12 stays together for now, it's just a house of cards

It seems pretty clear that the Pac 10's data must be telling them that the money is not there without Texas. Otherwise, they could just invite Oklahoma (and probably have to take OSU) and force Texas' hand.

It occurs to me that Texas must be in a position to let the Pac 10 get its network up and running to see if it sinks or swims, take the Big 12's offer for 4-years or so, and then allow themselves to be courted again by the Big Ten, Pac 10, and SEC in a few more years.

It seems pretty clear that the Pac 10's data must be telling them that the money is not there without Texas. Otherwise, they could just invite Oklahoma (and probably have to take OSU) and force Texas' hand.

I think that's the plan. The last measure is to invite TTU, Oklahoma, and Ok State. All three of them want in and if all three jump to the PAC-10, Texas won't have much left in conference to stay with.

It occurs to me that Texas must be in a position to let the Pac 10 get its network up and running to see if it sinks or swims, take the Big 12's offer for 4-years or so, and then allow themselves to be courted again by the Big Ten, Pac 10, and SEC in a few more years.

Could also happen. If the Big-12 is going to basically develop the Texas network, why not take that deal?

It seems like a tremendous stretch to think that the Pac 10's new deal would be greater (and $25-million is much greater) than the Big Ten's current deal with Texas not involved. You can bring in all the Oklahomas and Coloradoes that you want, but the state of Texas is where the value lies.

I think that's the plan. The last measure is to invite TTU, Oklahoma, and Ok State. All three of them want in and if all three jump to the PAC-10, Texas won't have much left in conference to stay with.





Wouldn't that send Texas right to the Big 10, who would be happy to take them without Texas Tech?

It seems like a tremendous stretch to think that the Pac 10's new deal would be greater (and $25-million is much greater) than the Big Ten's current deal with Texas not involved. You can bring in all the Oklahomas and Coloradoes that you want, but the state of Texas is where the value lies.

Texas brings about 6-8 million per school extra. It's a big incentive for the PAC-10 to land them. Without, the PAC-10 is looking about 17 million per school

Wouldn't that send Texas right to the Big 10, who would be happy to take them without Texas Tech?

I didnt think the Big-10 was even a player with Texas anymore? If that is a problem, then the PAC-10 doesnt invite TTU to eliminate that aspect

I think that's the plan. The last measure is to invite TTU, Oklahoma, and Ok State. All three of them want in and if all three jump to the PAC-10, Texas won't have much left in conference to stay with.



Could also happen. If the Big-12 is going to basically develop the Texas network, why not take that deal?

I don't think it would work out that way. In that scenario, all you are doing is empowering Texas to play the Big Ten, Pac Ten, and SEC against one another, without the added weight of schools that have various levels of undesiriability, until one of the conferences grants Texas a favorable situation.

Texas brings about 6-8 million per school extra. It's a big incentive for the PAC-10 to land them. Without, the PAC-10 is looking about 17 million per school

Which is the number the Big 12 will reportedly get per team AND they will let Texas have their own network. Texas has all the leverage in this situation.

Chris Level, the Rivals Texas Tech writer, just tweeted this:


The odds of Texas Tech joining the Pac 10 conference are now much less than 50%.

The OU rivals site is supposedly saying that there is a flaw in the Texas plan in that it hinges upon petitioning the NCAA for a championship game (the ABC contract supposedly contains a clawback provision to recoup $$$ if there is no championship game).

Which is the number the Big 12 will reportedly get per team AND they will let Texas have their own network. Texas has all the leverage in this situation.

I thought the numbers were about 12 million per team, no? And if TAMU heads to the SEC, doesnt that leverage disappear?

Arles, that's about right. Even if the Big-12 stays together for now, it's just a house of cards

Yep. It's going to blow up whether it's now or in 3-4 years. They might as well taking the wrecking ball to it right now. There's no level of trust left.

The OU rivals site is supposedly saying that there is a flaw in the Texas plan in that it hinges upon petitioning the NCAA for a championship game (the ABC contract supposedly contains a clawback provision to recoup $$$ if there is no championship game).

That would be an interesting vote. I believe the ACC's request to have a championship game with 11-teams was declined, which lead them to invite weak-link Boston College.

Yep. It's going to blow up whether it's now or in 3-4 years. They might as well taking the wrecking ball to it right now. There's no level of trust left.

Regardless of the trust issue (which is a miniscule factor compared to $$$), I think you are correct. Either way, Texas is going to come out wonderfully and Oklahoma, OSU, and A&M are going to find good landing spots.

Perhaps this was posted in the thread already but I guess if the 10 team Big 12 continues on and there is no title game, then UT and OU would move the RRS to the end of the year at Jerryworld.

Perhaps this was posted in the thread already but I guess if the 10 team Big 12 continues on and there is no title game, then UT and OU would move the RRS to the end of the year at Jerryworld.

That would take A&M moving to the SEC, as that has been the final game of the regular season for both schools forever. I'd say there would be more of a chance of the Texas-OU game moving to a home and home than there would be to move it from the Cotton Bowl during the Texas State Fair.

I thought the numbers were about 12 million per team, no? And if TAMU heads to the SEC, doesnt that leverage disappear?

I thought they said $14-17M + Texas could start its own network ($3-5M).

That gives Texas between $17M-22M and keeps them a head taller than all the other teams (as opposed to making the same amount as, say Oregon State or Washington State in the Pac 10).

That would take A&M moving to the SEC, as that has been the final game of the regular season for both schools forever. I'd say there would be more of a chance of the Texas-OU game moving to a home and home than there would be to move it from the Cotton Bowl during the Texas State Fair.

Makes sense.

As long as UT is "available" they hold the cards, namely because no deal will match the Big 10's with UT involved in it. I say this too because I firmly believe should UT join the Big 10, ND would be team #14 and the conference would stop there.

That would be a huge financial windfall for everyone in the conference.

As long as UT is "available" they hold the cards, namely because no deal will match the Big 10's with UT involved in it. I say this too because I firmly believe should UT join the Big 10, ND would be team #14 and the conference would stop there.

That would be a huge financial windfall for everyone in the conference.

Yes. I concur.

That would take A&M moving to the SEC, as that has been the final game of the regular season for both schools forever. I'd say there would be more of a chance of the Texas-OU game moving to a home and home than there would be to move it from the Cotton Bowl during the Texas State Fair.

I hope that's the case. IMO, there is no place better for OU-Texas than where it is now. I probably wouldn't care as much to go in a generic environment like JerryWorld where I'm paying money to tailgate in a huge parking lot...in December.

I feel sorry for Mizzou. They made some of the first public statements that led us to believe change was coming because they were tired of being in Texas' harem. Now it looks like they'll have to service Texas and be thankful that they have a home not called the MWC

Which is the number the Big 12 will reportedly get per team AND they will let Texas have their own network. Texas has all the leverage in this situation.

Texas has less leverage than they used to have. Because with only the ten teams involved, they are in a situation where they can't lose any more of their playing partners. Even Mizzou leaving would kill it off. OU and A&M would as well. I think there are places to go for OU and A&M, so the leverage isn't all with Texas. That being said, they sure have a lot more than most other teams.

But if Texas gets all the power and money, there could be a big push from the other schools to go to the Pac Ten in an effort to force Texas to move with them so they won't be put in as much of a competitive disadvantage (while still making the extra money). The only backfire is if Texas goes to the Big Ten or SEC.

Regardless of the trust issue (which is a miniscule factor compared to $$$), I think you are correct. Either way, Texas is going to come out wonderfully and Oklahoma, OSU, and A&M are going to find good landing spots.

Mizzou is better off with the Big 12 getting the wrecking ball now as well. It would force a larger Pac-10 which would instigate expansions in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which are good fits for Mizzou. Without that trigger, not much will change.

As long as UT is "available" they hold the cards, namely because no deal will match the Big 10's with UT involved in it. I say this too because I firmly believe should UT join the Big 10, ND would be team #14 and the conference would stop there.

That would be a huge financial windfall for everyone in the conference.

This would be awesome, but I just don't see it.

But the Big Ten Network would become a national cable player if they could add UT and ND. The money for it alone would surpass anything any other conference could offer.

Texas has less leverage than they used to have. Because with only the ten teams involved, they are in a situation where they can't lose any more of their playing partners. Even Mizzou leaving would kill it off. OU and A&M would as well. I think there are places to go for OU and A&M, so the leverage isn't all with Texas. That being said, they sure have a lot more than most other teams.

But if Texas gets all the power and money, there could be a big push from the other schools to go to the Pac Ten in an effort to force Texas to move with them so they won't be put in as much of a competitive disadvantage (while still making the extra money). The only backfire is if Texas goes to the Big Ten or SEC.

This.

Some of these schools can throw a wrench in the renegotiations to break apart the conference if they don't like what's being offered. My understanding is that, although the total amount is higher, the distribution will be even more uneven than before. I'm not sure that some of these schools who have places to move want to buy into that knowing it will likely blow up anyway in a few years.

Mizzou is better off with the Big 12 getting the wrecking ball now as well. It would force a larger Pac-10 which would instigate expansions in the Big Ten and SEC, both of which are good fits for Mizzou. Without that trigger, not much will change.

Mizzou is a good fit for the Big Ten...less so for the SEC. When I say fit, I mean more than just $ (which I think is pretty important for the SEC). For the record, I think OU and the SEC is a terrible "fit."

Mizzou is a good fit for the Big Ten...less so for the SEC. When I say fit, I mean more than just $ (which I think is pretty important for the SEC). For the record, I think OU and the SEC is a terrible "fit."

Agreed. Big 10 is the better fit of the two.

I feel sorry for Mizzou. They made some of the first public statements that led us to believe change was coming because they were tired of being in Texas' harem. Now it looks like they'll have to service Texas and be thankful that they have a home not called the MWC

Nobody from the university or athletic department ever said they were tired of being in the Big 12 or tired of being with Texas. You keep making comments that have absolutely zero factual basis, and its comical to me how much of a clown you are coming across as in all of this :popcorn:

Mizzou is a good fit for the Big Ten...less so for the SEC. When I say fit, I mean more than just $ (which I think is pretty important for the SEC). For the record, I think OU and the SEC is a terrible "fit."

Some SEC writers seem to think Mizzou would be the best choice out there:

SEC: Expounding on Expansion - Southern Pigskin: The Leading Name in Southern College Football Coverage (http://www.southernpigskin.com/index.php/site/sec_expounding_on_expansion/)

This would be awesome, but I just don't see it.

But the Big Ten Network would become a national cable player if they could add UT and ND. The money for it alone would surpass anything any other conference could offer.

I don't see it either, but I have no doubts that if UT joined the Big 10 it'd bring ND into the fold. Obviously it's easier for them to take the money, keep with most of their rivals and go play in the Pac, but I think if A&M goes to the SEC then they will pursue what is best for them, and the Big 10 would most likely be that.

There hasn't been a peep out of the ACC during all of this, presumably because they are afraid of a potential SEC raid and keeping quiet. If the Big Ten and SEC wind up staying at 12, could the ACC leap at the chance to be the first to expand to 16 rather than waiting around a few years to pick through leftovers (assuming this will all eventually lead to 4 or 5 16 team conferences)? Not only that, but putting together a strong 16 now could help prevent them from being raided down the road.

Nobody from the university or athletic department ever said they were tired of being in the Big 12 or tired of being with Texas. You keep making comments that have absolutely zero factual basis, and its comical to me how much of a clown you are coming across as in all of this :popcorn:

Huh? It's like you purposely don't follow the situation that is going on in expansion or your fellow Missouri fans

There hasn't been a peep out of the ACC during all of this, presumably because they are afraid of a potential SEC raid and keeping quiet. If the Big Ten and SEC winding up staying at 12, could the ACC leap at the chance to be the first to expand to 16 rather than waiting around a few years to pick through leftovers (assuming this will all eventually lead to 4 or 5 16 team conferences)? Not only that, but putting together a strong 16 now could help prevent them from being raided down the road.

I could see them raiding the Big East, grabbing WVU, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse/Uconn, but I am not sure what good it does for them financially. It seems like if they got there own network it wouldn't be a huge deal compared to the Big 10 or SEC, so splitting it 16 ways would probably not go over well.

There hasn't been a peep out of the ACC during all of this, presumably because they are afraid of a potential SEC raid and keeping quiet. If the Big Ten and SEC winding up staying at 12, could the ACC leap at the chance to be the first to expand to 16 rather than waiting around a few years to pick through leftovers (assuming this will all eventually lead to 4 or 5 16 team conferences)? Not only that, but putting together a strong 16 now could help prevent them from being raided down the road.

I've been surprised by this too. To me, the "grab Nebraska and hold at 12 for now" philosophy of the Big 10 was always questionable because we know they wanted two things (or at least said so publicly): expansion into new markets and maintaining the high academic profile of the conference. Nebraska doesn't really accomplish either unless you're a firm believer that they have a strong enough national appeal for it to matter, which again I'm not really sure of. As a result, I'm surprised the Big 10 has left NYC in play...the ACC being proactive and grabbing Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn all at once could be a great grab.

Some SEC writers seem to think Mizzou would be the best choice out there:

SEC: Expounding on Expansion - Southern Pigskin: The Leading Name in Southern College Football Coverage (http://www.southernpigskin.com/index.php/site/sec_expounding_on_expansion/)

I'm sorry. I stopped taking that article seriously in the first paragraph. The grammar was atrocious.

Dear SouthernPigskin.com "writer" (and I use the term incredibly loosely): "dominate" is a verb - not an adjective - you stupid fuck. If you can't even get that right before you click 'submit' on your breathless piece of mental masturbation, that tells me precisely how seriously you take your work, as well as precisely how seriously I ought *not* to.

I've been surprised by this too. To me, the "grab Nebraska and hold at 12 for now" philosophy of the Big 10 was always questionable because we know they wanted two things (or at least said so publicly): expansion into new markets and maintaining the high academic profile of the conference. Nebraska doesn't really accomplish either unless you're a firm believer that they have a strong enough national appeal for it to matter, which again I'm not really sure of. As a result, I'm surprised the Big 10 has left NYC in play...the ACC being proactive and grabbing Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn all at once could be a great grab.

Big Ten has all the power still, mainly because they can see what happens with UT. If UT becomes a legit option, I think the Big Ten adds them and ND and calls it a day.

I could see them raiding the Big East, grabbing WVU, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse/Uconn, but I am not sure what good it does for them financially. It seems like if they got there own network it wouldn't be a huge deal compared to the Big 10 or SEC, so splitting it 16 ways would probably not go over well.

The ACC bylaws require schools to actually be in coastal states from what I've read, so that eliminates Pitt and WVU if that's maintained (nothing to say it wouldn't be). The new TV deal got a lot more money for each school, and who knows what kind of conditions are built in that could escalate the value. We're talking about the entire east coast of the US (guess no Maine), that's a lot of people.

Big Ten has all the power still, mainly because they can see what happens with UT. If UT becomes a legit option, I think the Big Ten adds them and ND and calls it a day.

Definitely agree, my point was more along the lines of recognizing that would be an unlikely best-case scenario. If those two are added, you don't have to really worry much about local and regional markets...people all over the country are tuning in for those.

I've been surprised by this too. To me, the "grab Nebraska and hold at 12 for now" philosophy of the Big 10 was always questionable because we know they wanted two things (or at least said so publicly): expansion into new markets and maintaining the high academic profile of the conference. Nebraska doesn't really accomplish either unless you're a firm believer that they have a strong enough national appeal for it to matter, which again I'm not really sure of.
Nebraska fits the academic profile of the conference just fine - they're one of the longest-standing members of the AAU and are a top-tier research university. And Nebraska still carries a strong name brand for football.

I'm sorry. I stopped taking that article seriously in the first paragraph. The grammar was atrocious.

Dear SouthernPigskin.com "writer" (and I use the term incredibly loosely): "dominate" is a verb - not an adjective - you stupid fuck. If you can't even get that right before you click 'submit' on your breathless piece of mental masturbation, that tells me precisely how seriously you take your work, as well as precisely how seriously I ought *not* to.

It's basically a blog.

Nobody from the university or athletic department ever said they were tired of being in the Big 12 or tired of being with Texas. You keep making comments that have absolutely zero factual basis, and its comical to me how much of a clown you are coming across as in all of this :popcorn:

He's just trying to get MBBF's attention. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that nobody associated with the university has said anything. The governor was just trying to win some votes with his Big Ten statement and that has nothing to do with Mizzou.

LOL@ESPN

Running stories about how Texas is about to merge with the PAC-10 and how the Big-12 is staying as is. I guess one of them has to be right, might as well run both

Definitely agree, my point was more along the lines of recognizing that would be an unlikely best-case scenario. If those two are added, you don't have to really worry much about local and regional markets...people all over the country are tuning in for those.

Gotcha. It is a good question though as to why the ACC is so quiet. I just wonder if say Rutgers would jump at the offer without knowing what is going on with the Big Ten.

For Panerd, who keeps on drinking the kool-aid

I don't think A&M is the package deal that everyone thought it might be. My understanding continues to be that Mizzou officials KNOW that they will receive an invite. The uncertainty continues to be who those other teams will be. Let's assume that I'm correct for the sake of the discussion. If the Big Ten were to land Notre Dame, Texas, and Mizzou, they would land a 'national' team in ND and would essentially steal the top two TV markets (by state) in the B12 footprint and put them in their conference. That would make perfect sense given what we know about their goals with expansion.

The Pac 10 is going to land some good teams regardless of what Texas does. There's plenty to choose from in the West depending on what their priorities are.

Heard today that Mizzou and Nebraska plan on doing absolutely nothing in regards to the 'ultimatum' by the conferences. Both schools have been privately guaranteed that if the Texas 6 (new nickname evidently) head for the Pac-10, MU and NU will receive bids to the Big 10. Even more interesting, they've also been told that if that occurs, Notre Dame will accept a bid and the Big Ten will expand to 16 teams, grabbing two other Big East teams to fill out the league. Crazy stuff.

It's a done deal. Alden and Osborne have contacted the Big 12 officials and the AD's and informed them that they will accept a bid to the Big 10.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. Chip is about 2 days behind this process as far as what NU and MU are doing. Mizzou and Nebraska have already agreed to leave. Mizzou officials are hoping to make some sort of an announcement today. Have not heard anything specific on when NU plans on making their announcement. As digamma mentioned, the poster on the NU board who said a NU announcement was coming was making his 1st post, but his info is exactly the same as what's being circulated by people within the MU athletic department.

As for the Notre Dame situation, the person who wrote the article saying that ND may be the only team has since backed off that comment and said that is no longer the case. He described it as a 'very fluid situation'.

Official board votes by MU and NU to join the Big 10 will be done this week. MU Board of Regents meets today and tomorrow. Nebraska Board of Regents meets tomorrow and Friday. It would appear Beebe is going to get his response before the ultimatum clock expires.

I still can not honestly believe how many people are erroneously reporting that Notre Dame is interested in being the 12th team. The NU and MU deals are done. NU has been wanting to make an announcement all week to end the speculation, but the Big Ten president has asked them to wait until tomorrow. The Big 10 plans to add three teams in the next week or two, but that won't be the end of the expansion. They will add two more teams before the school year begins.

There's a TON of things that have to fall in place for this scenario and even Kietzmann noted that this isn't anywhere close to a done deal. But it's certainly an interesting twist to be sure. The Big Ten had talked with Mizzou as recently as yesterday saying that a bid would be sent. We'll have to see what plays out tomorrow.

Mizzou has handled this more professionally than any other school involved. They're the only administration out of the major players in the Big 12 that has kept their dirty laundry behind close doors.

Wow. This isn't even close to resolved yet. There are good sources within Mizzou saying that most of the information that Kietzmann spoke of is not true and that Mizzou is still in play for a Big 10 bid.

This is crazy.

Truth is far stranger than fiction. Yesterday's situation was a well-orchestrated PR media hit directed by other schools to attempt to plant seeds of distrust and derail negotiations between various schools and conference leaders. It created quite a rise amongst fans (look at the last few pages of this thread), but not a whole lot has changed within the athletic departments. We're still roughly where we were before the media blitz started.

I agree with Matter concerning Mizzou's handling of this whole situation. It's amazing how much more polished they are in handling these kinds of situations than they were a few years ago with the Ricky Clemons fiasco. Much of the credit should go to Gary Forsee. He brought in a lot of knowledge from his years in business on how to keep things even-keeled from a PR perspective. As long as Mizzou remains quiet, it's generally good news for the University.

Apparently it's coming out of Big 12 North schools that the conference has been saved. We'll see soon enough I guess.

Gotcha. It is a good question though as to why the ACC is so quiet. I just wonder if say Rutgers would jump at the offer without knowing what is going on with the Big Ten.

I don't think we'd make a move without having a better understanding on what the Big Ten's plans are. At this point, you have to trust your powers-that-be until they give you a reason not to. From what I've heard, there continues to be a lot of contact back and forth so I think whatever decision would be made would be based on the feel of it. If the ACC went down that route, I'd be surprised that they would offer Rutgers an ultimatum.

But to your earlier point, if they felt there was a strong likelihood that Texas ends up as Big Ten #13, we'd grab the ACC spot in a second.

I'm sorry. I stopped taking that article seriously in the first paragraph. The grammar was atrocious.

Dear SouthernPigskin.com "writer" (and I use the term incredibly loosely): "dominate" is a verb - not an adjective - you stupid fuck. If you can't even get that right before you click 'submit' on your breathless piece of mental masturbation, that tells me precisely how seriously you take your work, as well as precisely how seriously I ought *not* to.

Sack, you're such a grammar nazi sometimes :)

(tho, yeah, the dominant-dominate thing is one of the most frustrating things to come from illiterate sports "writers" in years)

SI

Since Texas is holding off on leaving, I bet the PAC-10 holds off on Utah and goes with an unbalanced grouping of 11 teams and holds those 5 spots until one of the teams gets tired of Texas' crap.

If Texas were to join the Big10, I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the first meeting when their reps walk past Nebraska reps.

For Panerd, who keeps on drinking the kool-aid

LOL. Hundreds of posts about how MBBF is a homer is Mizzou-deluded and he is your source. OK. Now how about an actual statement from the Mizzou adminstation or the athletic department about going to the Big Ten? If the kool-aid I am drinking is making me so delusional this one should be easy.

All I can remember is an idiot KC sports talk host (who by the way hates Mizzou) and the governor making national news. I conceded a few posts ago that the fans deserve this for getting all giddy and basically saying "fuck you" to K-State, ISU, etc but never once have I seen anyone from within the university make any statement.

There hasn't been a peep out of the ACC during all of this, presumably because they are afraid of a potential SEC raid and keeping quiet. If the Big Ten and SEC wind up staying at 12, could the ACC leap at the chance to be the first to expand to 16 rather than waiting around a few years to pick through leftovers (assuming this will all eventually lead to 4 or 5 16 team conferences)? Not only that, but putting together a strong 16 now could help prevent them from being raided down the road.

Hard to have much leverage when everyone knows you're going to be raided by your bigger, stronger competitor to the south. I mean, if you were a good school in the Big East, say, West Virginia- why would you accept an invite to the ACC when you could either be raided in a couple of years or just get an invite to the SEC. Would, say, USF be interested? Sure. But any of the big powers (WVa, Pitt, etc) is in a better position waiting.

SI

This thread:

http://www.memorylast.net/content/graphics/animated-gifs/popcorn.gif

LOL. Hundreds of posts about how MBBF is a homer is Mizzou-deluded and he is your source. OK. Now how about an actual statement from the Mizzou adminstation or the athletic department about going to the Big Ten? If the kool-aid I am drinking is making me so delusional this one should be easy.

If it was okay to acknowledge that there were all these back-channel moves going around to solicit Missouri to the Big 10, why not acknowledge that the same people are likely making those statements you're looking for?

Hard to have much leverage when everyone knows you're going to be raided by your bigger, stronger competitor to the south. I mean, if you were a good school in the Big East, say, West Virginia- why would you accept an invite to the ACC when you could either be raided in a couple of years or just get an invite to the SEC. Would, say, USF be interested? Sure. But any of the big powers (WVa, Pitt, etc) is in a better position waiting.

SI

I don't think people realize how huge the gap between the Big East and the rest of the BCS conferences is becoming. And I also think that the ACC has closed the gap considerably, financially, between itself and the SEC. I believe the ESPN deal the ACC just signed is good for $12-14 million per team or thereabouts. Not too bad compared to the SEC's $17 million. And the Big East is more like $3.5 million or so.

The SEC basically said that they didn't think a raid of the ACC was possible a lot recently in stories. Part of the issue could be that all of the likely targets have either in state SEC schools working against them or political ties that make it hard for them to leave (VT.) And in the end, it's just not a huge step up in money anyway, at least for the time being.

A&M Rivals guys are reporting the conference sticking together is premature and that the A&M regents are going into their meeting right now. The feeling is they are going to still vote to go to the SEC but nothing is certain.

If it was okay to acknowledge that there were all these back-channel moves going around to solicit Missouri to the Big 10, why not acknowledge that the same people are likely making those statements you're looking for?
Well i dont think anyone in the Mizzou camp believes the rumors or so called leaks out there are coming from the any of the key players in the Missouri camp, for better or worse. While Chip Brown and the texas rivals site are getting fed information, the guys like Gabe at powermizzou(mizzou's rivals site) are having to cite information from other sources and rumors they heared 3rd hand. Maybe mbbf knows things the rest of us dont, but all information i have seen from mizzou people has been speculation because none of the reliable sources have said a thing.

Heh, apparently A&M fans have been e-mailing everyone who is anyone at the school and letting them know that if the regents vote against going to the SEC they will stop donating to the school.

IMO, the key team in this whole thing is Oklahoma State. This new prevision gets Oklahoma, Texas and A&M a lot more money to keep them in the big 12 ($20ish mil). However, Missouri, OK St and Kansas are still going to stay in the $10 mil range at best.

OK St. figures to make $17-24 mil with the Pac 10 and Scott could simply offer OU-OSU and State would do everything they could to land in the Pac 10. Then, Texas would be forced to join the Pac or leave Tech hanging.

And now Joe Schad is tweeting:

OSUs Board of Regents have scheduled an expansion-related meeting for Wednesday at 3 p.m.

I don't think people realize how huge the gap between the Big East and the rest of the BCS conferences is becoming. And I also think that the ACC has closed the gap considerably, financially, between itself and the SEC. I believe the ESPN deal the ACC just signed is good for $12-14 million per team or thereabouts. Not too bad compared to the SEC's $17 million. And the Big East is more like $3.5 million or so.

The SEC basically said that they didn't think a raid of the ACC was possible a lot recently in stories. Part of the issue could be that all of the likely targets have either in state SEC schools working against them or political ties that make it hard for them to leave (VT.) And in the end, it's just not a huge step up in money anyway, at least for the time being.

Can't really dispute the second part. I don't know what the SEC is thinking at the moment. Why Texas A&M but not kick the tires on Oklahoma or Va Tech or West Virginia or something else? Their behavior so far hasn't made much sense to me.

To the first part, well, that's easier. The Big XII had a decent tv deal but as we've seen, if a team has, say $10M in the bank, they'd still rather break things up if they can get $15M elsewhere. That's the problem the ACC faces. No matter what you can offer, the SEC and Big 10 can offer more and they're both geographically positioned to pillage.

Not only that, but if you're a coveted candidate school (i.e. a domino that might fall) then you don't want to accept an ACC invitation if they're going to lose their strongest to one of those more powerful conferences. Getting out of a conference is just as hard as getting in, even if you're a big name school.

SI

Is West Virginia the most attractive school in the East that isn't in the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten?

Random note. I was listening to Kansas City 810 this morning on the web and Soren Petro had someone from CNBC on talking about the money figures that are being thrown around. There were some interesting salient points

1) If you're making a deal with another network (say, Fox or ESPN), you care only about teams that bring you ratings. Yes, pulling in, say, the Denver market with Colorado is kindof substantial but at the end of the day, it's not that big of a number- sure, you've added maybe 300K buffs fans there but that's a drop in the bucket unless it's a national profile team (read: Texas, Notre Dame).

2) If you're making your own network (Pac-10, Big 10) then you care about markets you can get into for subscriber fees. I suppose that's why Rutgers is coveted but, realistically, unless you can get the Rutgers fanbase to get so riled up to get the Big 10 Network included on the major New York providers, they're kindof useless. He thought it was unlikely Rutgers fans have that clout. It's something slightly perplexing about the Nebraska deal to him, tho they play the part of a team from point 7 below (not increase subscribers but increase ratings so you can collect more per subscriber).

3) The Big XII pretty much has to be done. Even if they get this deal from Fox that Beebe is trumpeting and, frankly, he doesn't think the dollars are there. Maybe it's a deal where Texas gets $20M and everyone else gets $5M but no tv exec can figure out where these numbers are coming from so he thinks they're just made up for posturing.

4) Similarly, the numbers being bandied about by the Pac 10 are similarly fictional. There are startup costs and this was the first year the Big 10 Network made money, 4 years in, and it's nowhere near the amount people are throwing around. Basically, the Pac 10 Network numbers are grossly inflated and/or made up. It's not because the right collection of teams couldn't get $20M per for a network once it's up and running. But there's no way you're getting $20M per for 16 teams for quite a while and especially not right off the bat.

5) Soren argued back that the Big XII has a $150M deal per year right now and that means that no only is there someone willing to pay $150M but to get to $150M, there had to be someone bidding against them at, say, $140M to get it up to $150M. The possible wild card in all this could be Comcast and Versus as ESPN is already lined up and Fox is who is putting together the possible cash for the Big XII-2 deal, which leaves no real players out there. He contended that if the Big XII imploded, that cash has a home somewhere so that's where the additional cash would possibly come from.

6) This is why Texas is willing to listen to the Fox deal for the Big XII-2. Everyone knows the conference is going to implode, sooner or later, but Texas thinks that they'll still be coveted this badly in a few years so let everyone get their ducks in a row (Big 10 keep courting Notre Dame, Pac 10 start their own network, SEC make their possible moves) so they don't have to assume any of the monetary risk and can reap whatever reward they want.

7) Basketball is getting pretty ignored in all this and there could be some bargains out there. For instance, he talked about how the Big 10 network had a couple of dozen mostly lower tier football games but over 120 basketball games. If they wanted to add some ratings and thus hope to increase the subscriber fees they could collect, they might want to add a big basketball program or two (read: Kansas).

8) Texas A&M to the SEC is pretty baffling to him. Why do it now? You have one more mouth to feed with no real value added to the league. That said, he also thought only Delaney really had an eye on the concept that each added team adds one more split and that he didn't think the Pac 10 or SEC commishes had their eye on this important part of the ball. They were looking mainly to increase their standing but

I didn't buy everything that the guy was selling but it was an interesting look at some of the "lesser covered" angles of this story, if there are any of those left.

SI

Is West Virginia the most attractive school in the East that isn't in the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten?

I would have thought Va Tech but I see W Va talked about more. I'm not really sure, tho.

SI

Is West Virginia the most attractive school in the East that isn't in the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten?

Not to the Big Ten. There's speculation that they could be the most attractive Eastern option to the SEC, but it's just speculation to this point.

Is West Virginia the most attractive school in the East that isn't in the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten?

Strictly football/basketball wise, yes. But academically and financially, I'd say Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse are all ahead of them in the Big East.

I would have thought Va Tech but I see W Va talked about more. I'm not really sure, tho.

SI

Virginia Tech has a real political problem and probably couldn't go anywhere without UVA, who wouldn't want to go anywhere without Duke and Carolina.

Apparently it's coming out of Big 12 North schools that the conference has been saved. We'll see soon enough I guess.

Mike Alden is meeting with the coaches of the MU athletic programs at 4:00 CDT to update them on the current situation.

Mike Alden is meeting with the coaches of the MU athletic programs at 4:00 CDT to update them on the current situation.

Is he going to finally tell them that he called the Big XII offices and resigned Missouri's membership last week?

the Big 12 staying together would be a mistake for everyone involved. We know it is blowing up, just get it over with.

I'm just looking at the conference if it stays at ten and looking at football:

1) Texas
2) Oklahoma

3) OSU
4) A&M
5) Missouri

6) Texas Tech

7) Kansas State
8) Kansas
9) Baylor
10) Iowa State

That's brutal. Texas/OU winner is the champion 95% of the time.

Strictly football/basketball wise, yes. But academically and financially, I'd say Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse are all ahead of them in the Big East.

Even strictly football/basketball wise, Pitt may be WVU's equal, especially looking forward (and there financials definitely play a big part).

Random note. I was listening to Kansas City 810 this morning on the web and Soren Petro had someone from CNBC on talking about the money figures that are being thrown around. There were some interesting salient points

1) If you're making a deal with another network (say, Fox or ESPN), you care only about teams that bring you ratings. Yes, pulling in, say, the Denver market with Colorado is kindof substantial but at the end of the day, it's not that big of a number- sure, you've added maybe 300K buffs fans there but that's a drop in the bucket unless it's a national profile team (read: Texas, Notre Dame).

2) If you're making your own network (Pac-10, Big 10) then you care about markets you can get into for subscriber fees. I suppose that's why Rutgers is coveted but, realistically, unless you can get the Rutgers fanbase to get so riled up to get the Big 10 Network included on the major New York providers, they're kindof useless. He thought it was unlikely Rutgers fans have that clout. It's something slightly perplexing about the Nebraska deal to him, tho they play the part of a team from point 7 below (not increase subscribers but increase ratings so you can collect more per subscriber).

3) The Big XII pretty much has to be done. Even if they get this deal from Fox that Beebe is trumpeting and, frankly, he doesn't think the dollars are there. Maybe it's a deal where Texas gets $20M and everyone else gets $5M but no tv exec can figure out where these numbers are coming from so he thinks they're just made up for posturing.

4) Similarly, the numbers being bandied about by the Pac 10 are similarly fictional. There are startup costs and this was the first year the Big 10 Network made money, 4 years in, and it's nowhere near the amount people are throwing around. Basically, the Pac 10 Network numbers are grossly inflated and/or made up. It's not because the right collection of teams couldn't get $20M per for a network once it's up and running. But there's no way you're getting $20M per for 16 teams for quite a while and especially not right off the bat.

5) Soren argued back that the Big XII has a $150M deal per year right now and that means that no only is there someone willing to pay $150M but to get to $150M, there had to be someone bidding against them at, say, $140M to get it up to $150M. The possible wild card in all this could be Comcast and Versus as ESPN is already lined up and Fox is who is putting together the possible cash for the Big XII-2 deal, which leaves no real players out there. He contended that if the Big XII imploded, that cash has a home somewhere so that's where the additional cash would possibly come from.

6) This is why Texas is willing to listen to the Fox deal for the Big XII-2. Everyone knows the conference is going to implode, sooner or later, but Texas thinks that they'll still be coveted this badly in a few years so let everyone get their ducks in a row (Big 10 keep courting Notre Dame, Pac 10 start their own network, SEC make their possible moves) so they don't have to assume any of the monetary risk and can reap whatever reward they want.

7) Basketball is getting pretty ignored in all this and there could be some bargains out there. For instance, he talked about how the Big 10 network had a couple of dozen mostly lower tier football games but over 120 basketball games. If they wanted to add some ratings and thus hope to increase the subscriber fees they could collect, they might want to add a big basketball program or two (read: Kansas).

8) Texas A&M to the SEC is pretty baffling to him. Why do it now? You have one more mouth to feed with no real value added to the league. That said, he also thought only Delaney really had an eye on the concept that each added team adds one more split and that he didn't think the Pac 10 or SEC commishes had their eye on this important part of the ball. They were looking mainly to increase their standing but

I didn't buy everything that the guy was selling but it was an interesting look at some of the "lesser covered" angles of this story, if there are any of those left.

SI
Interesting stuff, and I agree with a lot of it. I'd dispute the contention that the Pac-10 doesn't understand the split of the pie concept - it's been hammered home repeatedly throughout this process by the conference that they're only going to expand if it makes sense financially to do so.

I would definitely agree that the TV numbers Beebe is throwing out there right now are fiction, and the wild numbers I've seen in the last couple of days for the Pac-16 are similarly fictional (up to $30M per team?). That said, I'd also be surprised if the Pac-16 didn't pull a better TV deal, perhaps significantly so, than the weakened Big-"12".

Definitely agree about basketball, and I'd be shocked if Scott didn't extend an invite to Kansas if the Pac-16 happens for precisely that reason.

Good points too about even if the Big-"12" survives, it may just be temporary, and Texas is willing to wait things out a little longer so long as they are also taken care of in the near term (which is what Beebe is trying to do). That allows them to evaluate what kind of TV deal the Pac-12 can pull and see if they can get a Pac-Network going without having to pitch in for the initial start-up costs.

Right now, I'm rooting hard for A&M to jump to the SEC, as that will almost assuredly kill the attempts to keep the Big-"12" on life support, force Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac and open a spot up for Kansas to come along with them.

I know in my heart of hearts that scenario is probably the best thing for Kansas (short of, I suppose, the Big 10 coming calling for KU and MU over the giant number of well qualified candidates they have for reasons I can't fathom) but it doesn't mean I like it.

SI

Even strictly football/basketball wise, Pitt may be WVU's equal, especially looking forward (and there financials definitely play a big part).

Actually WVU has a 15-20% bigger athletic budget than Pitt (probably because people go to WVU football games.) Pitt is potentially more financially attractive to a conference because it's in a large TV market, but their sports do not do as well as WVU financially as things are, so that wouldn't be a competitive advantage for them. If they land in a better conference than WVU that could change, of course.

Couple of things. 1) I'm starting to pick rumblings that VaTech has accepted a preliminary offer to the SEC. 2) This is fucking awesome:

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0614/pg2_e_conference_576.jpg

Apparently it's coming out of Big 12 North schools that the conference has been saved. We'll see soon enough I guess.

No chance -- those schools are all as tight-lipped as they come!

Now that it looks like the Big 12 has worked things out, it would be awesome if the Big Ten started to flirt with Missouri again.

The Pac 10 plane never made it to KC yesterday. It flew back to California this afternoon.

Also, I'm disappointed if the conference stays at ten. I don't feel very solid with the TV promises and I don't trust Beebe. I wanted to keep things together at 12, but when two left, I'd rather just go to the Pac Ten than not really being sure what's going to happen for years on end.

Can't really dispute the second part. I don't know what the SEC is thinking at the moment. Why Texas A&M but not kick the tires on Oklahoma or Va Tech or West Virginia or something else? Their behavior so far hasn't made much sense to me.

You seem to assume that they haven't, simply because there isn't as much smoke around the water cooler about them doing so. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

This is, after all, a conference whose current commissioner negotiated a $2.5B TV deal last year, in addition to a separate $825m deal with another network. They also ended up with a branded "SEC Network" that reaches almost double the B10N households (via syndication) while getting someone else to foot the bill, deal with the admin, and worry about the sales.

His predecessor spearheaded the formation of the BCS and navigated the waters of college football's first championship game sized expansion.

Think what I might about the overall academics of the SEC, I have no qualms about the ability of the conference administrators to handle this current tremor. I'd say anyone selling them short does so at their own (conference) peril.

hahahaha no way I believe this for a second but:

1049 The Horn tweet (Radio station in Austin)

Looks like Big12 will be back to 12. BYU and Air Force will be invited to replace NU and CU by Wed. Texas/Okla schools are all on board.

Actually WVU has a 15-20% bigger athletic budget than Pitt (probably because people go to WVU football games.) Pitt is potentially more financially attractive to a conference because it's in a large TV market, but their sports do not do as well as WVU financially as things are, so that wouldn't be a competitive advantage for them. If they land in a better conference than WVU that could change, of course.

Would WVU carry the Pittsburgh market? Does Pitt draw better locally, but does WVU sell better nationally?

Big Ten debates divisional alignments in expansion - AnnArbor.com (http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/big-ten-debating-divisional-alignments-in-expansion/)


Big Ten football will have a different look when Nebraska begins play in 2011.

There’ll be a championship game, one that generates lots of money and keeps the league relevant into early December. And the conference will split into two six-team divisions, with the potential for those divisions to grow should the Big Ten decide to expand again.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said the league will adhere to three principles when it sets its divisions, likely sometime later this summer.

“First priority’s competitive fairness to me,” Delany said last week. “Second priority is maintenance of rivalries, some of them are very important. They’re part of who we are and they’re not treated lightly. And then I think the third is what factor, if any, does geography play?”

While university presidents will ultimately decide how the Big Ten aligns, Delany said associate commissioner Mark Rudner will outline a handful of divisional options for school athletic directors in the coming weeks.

During the Big Ten Network’s expansion coverage on Friday, analyst Gerry DiNardo laid out three possibilities. Two involved splitting the conference geographically (along north-south and east-west lines), while the third sought to split up traditional football powers Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska into “Bo” and “Woody” divisions.

DiNardo’s suggestions:

• Using the state of Indiana as a dividing line, Michigan would play in the East Division along with Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State, Indiana and Purdue. The West would be: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Northwestern.

• In a north-south split, the North Division would feature Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota and Northwestern. The South: Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois and Purdue.

• Under the Bo and Woody plan, Michigan headlines the “Bo” Division, named after former Wolverines coach Bo Schembechler, along with Nebraska, Michigan State, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois. The “Woody” Division (after former Buckeyes coach Woody Hayes) includes Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana and Northwestern.

“I would say forget about geography, make it as equal as possible, keep your rivalries, take your four historic powers” and split them into two divisions, DiNardo said.

Delany, appearing a few minutes later, said, “I sort of agree with Coach. I think it’s really important to work on the competitive fairness. That’s a great initial principle.”

There are issues to debate with each plan, but all three appear viable.

With an east-west alignment, the Big Ten risks being too unbalanced, like the old Big 12, with its traditional football and basketball powers consolidated mostly in the East. In the north-south and Bo-Woody plans, travel is more cumbersome, especially for non-revenue sports, and rivals like Michigan and Ohio State are in opposite divisions.

Delany said most rivalries (i.e., Michigan-Ohio State and Michigan-Michigan State) will be protected, though he admitted on the Big Ten Network “not all rivalries are equal.”

He also said he expects to have a 2011 schedule in place sometime later this summer.

“This is not going to the moon, this is creating some football and basketball schedules and some championship formats and selling some media rights,” he said. “I think it’s a challenge, but eminently doable."


What a bunch of crap. Bo and Woody divisions? Okay, there's a little humor in being the Woody Division champs, but that idea is so so stupid.

hahahaha no way I believe this for a second but:

1049 The Horn tweet (Radio station in Austin)

Looks like Big12 will be back to 12. BYU and Air Force will be invited to replace NU and CU by Wed. Texas/Okla schools are all on board.

Air Force?

Would WVU carry the Pittsburgh market? Does Pitt draw better locally, but does WVU sell better nationally?

I really have no idea in terms of ratings. I know WVU has had some pretty highly rated ESPN primetime games, but that's it.

Is West Virginia the most attractive school in the East that isn't in the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten?

Hmm ... after pondering that seemingly simple question for a bit I've come to the conclusion that the best answer is "it depends". Mostly on the eye of the beholder in question.

For the SEC, yeah, I'd say probably so.
For the B10(+x), probably not.

"Most attractive" in this situation is kind of like the whole blondes/brunettes/ redheads question I think. There's not a universal standard of "beauty" you can apply to answer the question.

Air Force?

The only possible thing i can think of is holding onto the denver market in some way, but it makes 0 sense to me to take Air Force...hell, BYU makes little sense to me as well.

The only possible thing i can think of is holding onto the denver market in some way, but it makes 0 sense to me to take Air Force...hell, BYU makes little sense to me as well.

While I don't think this report is even remotely believable, even hypothetically it would be largely a case of finding any port(s) in a storm rather than some detailed marketing strategy.

They probably make more sense than adding two random schools from Texas or non-football schools from elsewhere in the midwest, so beyond that what realistic criteria could they really apply when selecting replacements?

Couple of new tweets following up the Air Force/BYU talk:

We apologize, but it seems like someone had access to the account that shouldn't have.

104.9 The Horn DID NOT report that Air Force and BYU would be two new Big12 teams.

While I don't think this report is even remotely believable, even hypothetically it would be largely a case of finding any port(s) in a storm rather than some detailed marketing strategy.

They probably make more sense than adding two random schools from Texas or non-football schools from elsewhere in the midwest, so beyond that what realistic criteria could they really apply when selecting replacements?

Well if they are actually committed to staying I dont think they need or should get replacements. Their not going to get a bigger offer for anyone they can add right now, so why cut up the pie two more ways.

Hypothetically if they did, I think you have to look to strengthen your northern ties. The southern players would still be in place, but you lost two teams geographically on the far northern and western borders of the conference. Hypothetically, i think you have to look there...look at a Utah, a New Mexico, someone who offers a nice TV market. And also one who wouldnt challenge the status quo of southern power, because Texas wouldnt stick around if it didnt get more then its fair share.

Couple of new tweets following up the Air Force/BYU talk:

We apologize, but it seems like someone had access to the account that shouldn't have.

104.9 The Horn DID NOT report that Air Force and BYU would be two new Big12 teams.

LOL, that's all it takes to get the message boards and the college football world buzzing - an radio station intern with a twitter password.

So if Texas and Oklahoma are satisfied with the plan that Beebe has put together, is that regardless of what A&M does? Do they really think that a Big-"12" that is missing Nebraska, A&M & Colorado is going to bring in enough revenue to resist going to a Pac-16? Do they not think that the league will lose a lot of prestige and suffer accordingly when it comes to rankings, BCS assignments and bowl affiliations?

I buy the idea that the Big-"12" survives (for a little while at least) if A&M stays, but if they don't?

And are the rest of the remaining Big-"12" programs going to be happy with a revised conference that is even more unequal in revenue between the haves (Texas, Oklahoma) and the have-nots?

I think there's still room for Larry Scott and the Pac-10 to tip this back in their favor, especially if A&M jumps to the SEC.

And are the rest of the remaining Big-"12" programs going to be happy with a revised conference that is even more unequal in revenue between the haves (Texas, Oklahoma) and the have-nots?

Of course not, its blatantly clear now that the entire big 12 north was unhappy with how things were. If what they say about the new deal is true, its going to get even more unequal. The problem these schools face is they hold no leverage. Beyond being big and having a following, Texas can say either take it or i go to the pac 10 and you are left with nothing. So no, schools like K-state and mizzou would not at all be happy with the deal, but until they have alternative options it remains the best option for them.

Chip Brown tweets: Sources say a TV deal that will hold the B12-Lite together is done. A formal announcement soon.

He followed that up to announce the UT press conference tomorrow at 10 am. Also apparently the ESPN scroll says Texas has turned down the Pac 10 offer.

It's on the UCLA boards that Larry Scott has confirmed Texas has turned down the Pac-10 offer, which of course means none of the schools are moving over. All contingent on Texas A&M staying, but they have also apparently been satisfied with the deal being negotiated, and are wrapping up their meeting to confirm this.

No word on what the Pac 10 does, but I assume they invite Utah and call it a day.

I would guess that this arrangement is a bandaid. The remaining north schools will be even more unhappy with this deal, as noted, and the conference is probably going to lose its conference championship game, which is a money hit that works against the deal (even if the coaches might be happy about that).

II would guess that this arrangement is a bandaid. The remaining north schools will be even more unhappy with this deal, as noted, and the conference is probably going to lose its conference championship game, which is a money hit that works against the deal (even if the coaches might be happy about that).
Yeah, just seems like this is delaying the inevitable. There's no question the Big-"12" has been weakened by losing Nebraska - national perception of the conference will drop, and that will end up hurting Texas and Oklahoma in the polls and the BCS seedings. You also have to wonder if the bowls currently affiliated with the conference are going to be balking at the current arrangement of the league, and if Fox is going to be doing a face-palm move in a few years for the money they are throwing at the league to stay intact. Add in the resentment within the league, and you just wonder how long they can hold out before imploding...

You know that the Pac-12 and Big Ten aren't going to stop wooing Texas...

It seems like there is some confusion about who came through on this Big 12 TV deal. Many are suggesting that ESPN outbid Fox. I guess ESPN's Joe Schad did just tweet this:

The survival of the Big 12 is in the best interests of fans, coaches and players. Best for the sport.

Texas and A&M are both confirming they will be back in the Big 12.

It seems like there is some confusion about who came through on this Big 12 TV deal. Many are suggesting that ESPN outbid Fox. I guess ESPN's Joe Schad did just tweet this:

The survival of the Big 12 is in the best interests of fans, coaches and players. Best for the sport.

But not for his career as a reporter with the scoop?

So for those dogging Chip Brown - sure seems like he was right a lot more often than he was wrong in this whole deal.

I may be naive, but I think the musical chairs is over (for the most part). The only other defection will be Utah to the PAC 10, to create the PAC 12 (which is the new conference name said by both Colorado and PAC 10 officials in their press conferences). The Big 10 would then become the Big 12, and the Big 12 would become the Big 10.

:D

It seems like there is some confusion about who came through on this Big 12 TV deal. Many are suggesting that ESPN outbid Fox. I guess ESPN's Joe Schad did just tweet this:

The survival of the Big 12 is in the best interests of fans, coaches and players. Best for the sport.

Since when has anything in college football been done for the best interest of fans, coaches and players? That's pretty f'ing hilarious. If ESPN bid that much (I've heard as much $163 million per year), it's just to keep their sparkly new BCS contract worth something more than scrap paper.

LOL, that's all it takes to get the message boards and the college football world buzzing - an radio station intern with a twitter password.

I would of figured Colorado State would be more attractive than Air Force.

I think the ACC has a great chance to go for 16 teams if they really wanted too.

How the hell did ESPN find all that money? The ACC is obsolete as a football conference and I hope Florida State leaves it for the SEC.

If Utah or BYU leave, the MWC won't be able to score high enough for a BCS bid. I wonder if Boise St. will be pissed off if both leave?