If he's right (and he seems to have good sources), the Pac Ten truly screwed up by thinking it could break up Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. They would have been fine with Baylor.
Yeah, that's the first thing I've read where I really question Larry Scott - if you want Oklahoma, you need to make it easy on them and bring along Oklahoma State. Pissing off billionaires that own a school is not smart...

The OSU thing doesn't make sense in the story. They offered Oklahoma State. Then Texas A&M declined. So where is the getting rid of Oklahoma State part? It seems odd that they would offer OU and OSU, get regent's meetings scheduled, and then rescind OSU's offer.

Yeah- that sounds fishy to me. I think he's got to have it backwards. It makes a lot more sense for Kansas to have Texas A&M's spot and Utah left out in the cold

SI

Fuck....

It's official...

Pac-10 Extends Invitation to the University of Utah - PAC-10 OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE (http://www.pac-10.org/genrel/061610aaa.html)

To the team up north...FUCK OFF!

Who's your dog in this fight? (I'm just curious what fanbase is pissed about this).

Nebraska and Colorado now say they aren't paying the big 12 a dime since they helped the conference out when leaving, citing tv contract numbers.

Unless that's one strangely worded contract, that's one of the more laughable claims I can ever recall hearing anyone make.

The OSU thing doesn't make sense in the story. They offered Oklahoma State. Then Texas A&M declined. So where is the getting rid of Oklahoma State part? It seems odd that they would offer OU and OSU, get regent's meetings scheduled, and then rescind OSU's offer.

Yeah- that sounds fishy to me. I think he's got to have it backwards. It makes a lot more sense for Kansas to have Texas A&M's spot and Utah left out in the cold

SI

Agreed. This sounds like revisionist history by Chip to try to make himself look better.

Just to end the nonsense about Arkansas and the Texas 10:

A statement from our athletic director, Jeff Long.

“In recent weeks and months there has been much national dialogue regarding conference affiliation in intercollegiate athletics. In the course of that dialogue some have suggested that the University of Arkansas was an institution that may be pursued by other conferences. From the beginning, we have been very clear that the University of Arkansas is a proud member of the Southeastern Conference and has no interest in joining another conference. Chancellor Gearhart has been unwavering in his support of our institution’s continued membership in the SEC. Recent events have not in any way altered our commitment or desire to remain a member of what we believe is the strongest conference in the nation.”

/end

Who's your dog in this fight? (I'm just curious what fanbase is pissed about this).

BYU, I think

SI

Unless that's one strangely worded contract, that's one of the more laughable claims I can ever recall hearing anyone make.


There will be more laughable claims made by CU and NU before it is through. And a long court case tying up the money as long as possible. Then after burning through money, it will be paid out.

Just to end the nonsense about Arkansas and the Texas 10:

A statement from our athletic director, Jeff Long.

“In recent weeks and months there has been much national dialogue regarding conference affiliation in intercollegiate athletics. In the course of that dialogue some have suggested that the University of Arkansas was an institution that may be pursued by other conferences. From the beginning, we have been very clear that the University of Arkansas is a proud member of the Southeastern Conference and has no interest in joining another conference. Chancellor Gearhart has been unwavering in his support of our institution’s continued membership in the SEC. Recent events have not in any way altered our commitment or desire to remain a member of what we believe is the strongest conference in the nation.”

/end

To be fair, everyone's put out a lot of press releases over the past couple of weeks that involved lying through everyone's teeth. The bigger reason is that it has never made any sense for Arkansas to leave where they're at so why would they.

SI

Who's your dog in this fight? (I'm just curious what fanbase is pissed about this).

BYU.....

Utah has always been the annoying little brother...they have a few good years and they get the invite...

I know BYU's status as a private, church owned school would screw them with the PAC-10, but you get a better market (Utah doesn't necessarily bring the SLC market), larger fan base that travels amazingly well (Not to mention the pockets of Mormons throughout the U.S.)

BYU.....

Utah has always been the annoying little brother...they have a few good years and they get the invite...

I know BYU's status as a private, church owned school would screw them with the PAC-10, but you get a better market (Utah doesn't necessarily bring the SLC market), larger fan base that travels amazingly well (Not to mention the pockets of Mormons throughout the U.S.)

If the Big 12 was to expand, BYU would be a no-brainer. I think BYU was pretty much going to be in, except Baylor managed to force their way in and the rest is history (the huge WAC followed by the MWC).

Will the BYU-Utah Holy War game end? It doesn't seem to take away from Florida-Florida State or any other non-conference rivalry games.

To be fair, everyone's put out a lot of press releases over the past couple of weeks that involved lying through everyone's teeth. The bigger reason is that it has never made any sense for Arkansas to leave where they're at so why would they.

SI

Point is:

ain't happenin'
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/Gorgonian14/1zcfz2bjpg.gif

Will the BYU-Utah Holy War game end? It doesn't seem to take away from Florida-Florida State or any other non-conference rivalry games.

I don't think it ends...but the meaning behind it goes away...it's an OOC game for us now...and turns into a beat a BCS conference team now....Not, hey this is our last game of the season (Our college career for seniors), winning this determines who gets the championship (most of the time) or a better bowl game and everyone plays balls out.

Honestly, the Holy War just lost it's luster for a ton of people...and as far as I am concerned. I hope to hell Utah loses every single game they play in the PAC

One of our beat writer summed it up

"It's a day BYU supporters wish would never have arrived, but it's here. BYU will continue to occupy its place among the best schools and athletic programs in the country, but will do so in a way that is deemed by some to be "secondary" to an instate rival that attracts fewer fans, TV viewers and radio listeners, and boasts less national appeal.

From a competitive standpoint, the WAC and then MWC's most athletically consistent and dominant program has been bypassed for a team which boasts considerable recent success (national championship basketball game, two BCS bowl games), but somewhat less of an across-the-board championship pedigree."

I think BYU-Utah could actually be more relevant now in terms of the fans. It used to mean something like a championship. Now all it means is hate...and that is maybe the strongest emotion. I think I've heard from some older OU fans that OU and Texas used to be more bitter rivals, because there was never, ever an excuse to root for the other team. Now some people (but certainly not all, and I never would) will even pull for Texas in a bowl game because of conference affiliation.

Oklahoma State was always part of the plan, not sure what Chip was smoking. I also disagree with calling Colorado a loser. They leave a sinking ship conference and get into a better spot in Pac 10. They will make more revenue than they were in the big 12, have more of a voice and be in a stable conference for the next decade.

The only negative is the fee, which it sounds like will be reduced (if not eliminated) from the original numbers and the Pac-10 has already agreed to help them out.

Even knowing what we do right now, I'm pretty sure neither the Pac-10 or Colorado would undo the move if they could. Getting the Pac-10 the Denver market and Colorado a stable home without being completely beholden to Texas (just ask KU, Kansas State and Missouri how great they feel about the next 5 years) is good enough to make this a solid move for all.

Yeah- that sounds fishy to me. I think he's got to have it backwards. It makes a lot more sense for Kansas to have Texas A&M's spot and Utah left out in the cold

SI
Exactly. I think the Oklahoma State getting dumped part of the story is B.S.

I've posted my thoughts on the invitation order for the major conferences:

* College Conference Realignment, Part IV*by*Football Frontier (http://www.solecismic.com/frontierblog/?p=339)

FWIW, Oklahoma State does not measure well, except for its recent success on the field based solely on the recent investment by one billionaire in its athletic programs.

That helps boost it ahead of Texas Tech, but still not terribly valuable in a conference switch. The Big XII's problem is that it has more low-end BCS programs than any other conference. Which is not meant to be an insult, it's more a reflection of geography and the way the Big 8 expanded than anything else.

This is making the rounds from a few places as what the Pac 12 divisions will end up being:

South:
USC
UCLA
Utah
Colorado
Arizona
ASU

North:
Oregon
OSU
Washington
WSU
Stanford
California

Seems even as of now but a lot of it depends on Harbaugh staying at Stanford long term (doubt it) and Sark continuing to bring back UW (much more likely)

Then again, the south looks wide open if these sanctions hit USC like I think they will.

Also, where is the Pac 12 Title Game going to be? I assume at the Cards stadium or the Rose Bowl, but they are limited as far as that goes.

Nebraska and Colorado now say they aren't paying the big 12 a dime since they helped the conference out when leaving, citing tv contract numbers.

haha this should be fun.
The first legal bomb will have to come from NU and CU. The revenue from the NCAA and TV contracts is distributed from the conference, and the Big 12 has stated CU and NU won't see dime until the 80% threshold has been met. I think there is a reasonable chance that both schools bluff and just walk away.

The real battle will be over Nebraska's second year. The Big 12 bylaws state that you forfeit money from your final two years in the conference. Since Nebraksa only plans to stay for one, the Big 12 will try to recoup money Nebraska has already been paid for 2009-10.

This is making the rounds from a few places as what the Pac 12 divisions will end up being:



Seems even as of now but a lot of it depends on Harbaugh staying at Stanford long term (doubt it) and Sark continuing to bring back UW (much more likely)

Then again, the south looks wide open if these sanctions hit USC like I think they will.

I've also seen those divisions from a few places including the Colorado's AD's office as a source. Makes sense geographically, but I imagine some of the north schools wouldn't be so happy about them.

Point is:

ain't happenin'
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/Gorgonian14/1zcfz2bjpg.gif
Hey, by the way, who is the heavyweight we're adding to the North to keep Texas in the Big 12? :D

Based on the last two weeks, the words no fans want to hear from their university: "We're proud members of the <INSERT NAME HERE> Conference."

Hey, by the way, who is the heavyweight we're adding to the North to keep Texas in the Big 12? :D

Based on the last two weeks, the words no fans want to hear from their university: "We're proud members of the <insert name="" here=""> Conference."

I would say whoever the hell ponied up all that TV money is the heavyweight.

And we didn't need to hear it from our university to know we aren't going anywhere. It would be tremendously stupid, and pretty much anyone can see that. I mean, I get that you're busting my balls here, but is there some case of a team saying that publically and then bolting for another conference recently?
</insert>

And we didn't need to hear it from our university to know we aren't going anywhere. It would be tremendously stupid, and pretty much anyone can see that. I mean, I get that you're busting my balls here, but is there some case of a team saying that publically and then bolting for another conference recently?
</insert>
"We like the Big 12. We're not looking to leave. We're not mad at anybody. We're not upset about anything."
- Tom Osborne, Nebraska Athletics Director
June 2, 2010

"We like the Big 12. We're not looking to leave. We're not mad at anybody. We're not upset about anything."
- Tom Osborne, Nebraska Athletics Director
June 2, 2010

:D I didn't follow this whole thing until it started to actually happen, so I hadn't heard stuff from that long ago.

Difference is there are obvious reasons for them to leave. It would be demonstrably stupid for us to do so. Another possible difference is that this was a voluntarily published press release. Was Tom Osborne's quote a response to a question on the spot, or put out on his own, unprompted?

Son of a.....

I just got to thinking, you know how big of a in state recruiting hit BYU will take against Utah now in regards to this...HOLY SHIT!

OMG....I don't know if am going to be a sane man tonight...between fighting with the soon to be ex and this...I am going fucking insane today.

Here's an interesting, way outside the box, proposal for Conference Armageddon. Emulate the promotion/relegations system of soccer in Europe.

What the English Premier League Can Teach College Football - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308782794344398.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_sports)

I really want to be in a league with this setup, or do a dynasty with this setup, or something. Any recommendations?

Heard someone on the radio yesterday (sorry was driving and only caught the tail end, but he was on Cowherd so it should be easy to figure out who and at least it was a national broadcast) but basically his story was that the whole PAC16 was a done deal until ESPN/ABC stepped in and made the money up to Texas et. al.

Supposedly ESPN didnt want to lose the Big 12 which it has rights to to a PAC conference that Fox has rights to....

Didnt get all the details but an interesting story.

Son of a.....

I just got to thinking, you know how big of a in state recruiting hit BYU will take against Utah now in regards to this...HOLY SHIT!

OMG....I don't know if am going to be a sane man tonight...between fighting with the soon to be ex and this...I am going fucking insane today.

That is huge because now Utah can play the BCS card which will likely sway a lot of kids on the fence, plus they gain more inroads into talent rich California. Definitely an advantage short term, but if they become a doormat in the Pac-10 that will change.

The sad thing is, right now I see them as the second best in that division behind SC.

There is also talk that things may change with the Big 12 and if they can coax one of the teams that left back (read Nebraska) that may open up a chance for BYU to go there. I still don't think all the dominoes have fallen here.

I've also seen those divisions from a few places including the Colorado's AD's office as a source. Makes sense geographically, but I imagine some of the north schools wouldn't be so happy about them.
Does it make sense geographically? SLC and Boulder are both north of the Bay Area, and besides - splitting up the California schools? UCLA and Cal in different divisions?

I'm having a hard time believing that Scott was so desperate to land Colorado that he promised them a South division with the L.A. schools. Hey Buffs, guess what - pretty much every Pac-10 team has a lot of alums in SoCal - get in line!

Either way, the PNW schools lose their annual games in L.A., and in a North/South split they either drop down to games every other year in L.A. (if the conference opts for 8 games) or 2 every 3 years if they opt for 9 games.

Heard someone on the radio yesterday (sorry was driving and only caught the tail end, but he was on Cowherd so it should be easy to figure out who and at least it was a national broadcast) but basically his story was that the whole PAC16 was a done deal until ESPN/ABC stepped in and made the money up to Texas et. al.

Supposedly ESPN didnt want to lose the Big 12 which it has rights to to a PAC conference that Fox has rights to....

Didnt get all the details but an interesting story.
The details are this - ESPN/ABC agreed to not change the money in their existing deal with the Big-12 even though the conference lost Nebraska and Colorado and will no longer have a Championship game. That means that the money that was being split among 12 teams is now split among 10 teams.

The sad thing is, right now I see them as the second best in that division behind SC.
Utah is good, but they're not better than Oregon and Oregon State. And it remains to be seen if they'll be as good as a rising Stanford and Washington, or Cal for that matter.

There is also talk that things may change with the Big 12 and if they can coax one of the teams that left back (read Nebraska) that may open up a chance for BYU to go there. I still don't think all the dominoes have fallen here.
Why would Nebraska even think for one second about going back?

Also, I see little reason to believe that the TV partners for the Big-12 are going to give the conference more money if they add BYU and another team - they're already overpaying by not reducing their payouts despite the Big-12 losing Nebraska, the Denver market and the Big-12 championship game.

Not happening.

And this assessment is different from 3 months ago how?

Uh, because the Big Ten added Nebraska?

ESPN/ABC agreed to not change the money in their existing deal with the Big-12 even though the conference lost Nebraska and Colorado and will no longer have a Championship game. That means that the money that was being split among 12 teams is now split among 10 teams.

Makes a reasonable amount of sense to me, leaves more airtime for Texas/OU/whoever else is playing reasonably well at the time.

Makes a reasonable amount of sense to me, leaves more airtime for Texas/OU/whoever else is playing reasonably well at the time.
Losing Colorado is no big deal right now since they suck, but losing Nebraska hurts - that's a historically great program that's back on the upswing and has some name brand appeal nationally.

Does the Big10 look like this:

East-- PSU, OSU, Mich, MSU, Purdue, Ind
West- Wisc, Ill, NW, Iowa, Minn, Neb

Or this:

East-- OSU, Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, Ill
West-- PSU, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb

Or this:

East-- Mich, PSU, MSU, Pur, Ind, ILL
West-- OSU, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb

I sure hope it is not option 1.

I sure hope it is not option 1.

Why not? It's the only one that makes sense. Moving the easternmost campus or the second easternmost campus to the western division is just nutty.

Didn't the commisioner say that competition would outweigh geography in deciding how the teams are broken up?

If that is the case, I would imagine that each division would get two of Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and Nebraska and then each would get one of Wisconsin and Iowa.

Why not? It's the only one that makes sense. Moving the easternmost campus or the second easternmost campus to the western division is just nutty.

Because as an IU football fan, I want us to at least have a chance at winning more than one game in conference each season.

It will obviously be interesting to see if Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division.

Might as well just let Michigan and Ohio State pick teams playground style.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs537.snc3/30486_1406721741718_1642653799_950887_7750341_n.jpg

saw this on another board and thought some of you might like it

Didn't the commisioner say that competition would outweigh geography in deciding how the teams are broken up?

If that is the case, I would imagine that each division would get two of Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and Nebraska and then each would get one of Wisconsin and Iowa.

When breaking up by competition I'd be best to just split up Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska so there's 2 in each division and then go by rivalries and location. Those are the only 4 teams who have long term records of success.

East-- OSU, Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, Ill
West-- PSU, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb

Eh, that's not bad. Maybe trade Wisc and MSU?

All things considered, I think the split needs to be geographic. While the Big 12 had problems in having a balanced North and South, the ACC had problems balancing anything when they came up with the Atlantic/Coastal split. FSU and Miami fought for a split arrangement because neither wanted to be in the same division. Once that split occurred, then it was a matter of figuring out how best to split the teams to preserve the most rivalries the league had prior to expansion. The ACC also hoped that it would result in perhaps having them meet again in a marquee ACCCG matchup. As a result, they opted to put the ACCCG in Jacksonville and Tampa. Of course, Miami and FSU both fell down on the job the last several years and allowed teams like BC, GT, and Wake Forest to get into the game instead which has produced attendance nightmares for the conference. There's also the general ridicule the conference receives for not having a geographic alignment, though to be fair, the question that would be asked if a geographic split was done was how to split up the four North Carolina schools.

Also, non-geographic divisions would have the worry of teams fluctuating in quality over time. A "balanced" division setup in 2010 may not be a "balanced" setup in 2015 or 2020 and then what would be the point of the original split? At least with a geographic split, the local rivalries are able to take precedence and there isn't the concern over trying to preserve some mythical "balance" between divisions.

Uggh its beginning the asshattedness of the Utah fans thinking they are awesome now...unfortunately I didn't drink tonight...to much shit to do tomorrow...let me invade this thread tomorrow night with the drink...and I will talk shit.

If a fan of a non-BCS team writes something on a message board, can anyone else actually see it?

:p

That is huge because now Utah can play the BCS card which will likely sway a lot of kids on the fence, plus they gain more inroads into talent rich California. Definitely an advantage short term, but if they become a doormat in the Pac-10 that will change.

The sad thing is, right now I see them as the second best in that division behind SC.

There is also talk that things may change with the Big 12 and if they can coax one of the teams that left back (read Nebraska) that may open up a chance for BYU to go there. I still don't think all the dominoes have fallen here.


Nebraska didn't just light a match under the bridge when they left the Big 12. They held a news conference where they used everything but a nuclear weapon and destroyed every bridge, road, railroad and any other means of rebuilding relations with Texas or anyone else in the Big 12. They don't want to come back and nobody in the Big 12 wants them back at this point. If that's the scenario you are hoping for, you are in for a long wait.

There seems to be some buzz that the Big East will be having a meeting this week to discuss its future and that a football/basketball split could be coming by the beginning of July (which would, I believe, give the 8-football schools enough years together to have credit for an autobid for tourneys).

A lesser rumor seems to be that another conference may have approached Pitt and WVU (and that may be what is spurring this meeting). Big 12 maybe?

There seems to be some buzz that the Big East will be having a meeting this week to discuss its future and that a football/basketball split could be coming by the beginning of July (which would, I believe, give the 8-football schools enough years together to have credit for an autobid for tourneys).

A lesser rumor seems to be that another conference may have approached Pitt and WVU (and that may be what is spurring this meeting). Big 12 maybe?

CFT is reporting that the Big East will invite UCF and Memphis into the Big East.

CFT is reporting that the Big East will invite UCF and Memphis into the Big East.

That would make some sense. UCF is ready and Memphis could turn out alright, if they get their shit together.

I imagine the football schools want two more schools to give them a better scheduling base (right now, each team gets 3/4 home games per year from in conference). Louisville's AD recently commented that the competition for getting decent home games (without a return visit) has gotten into the $750K-$1M range. Unfortunately, I bet the basketball schools will want to add two more teams to their side, so that they can keep voting balanced.

I have also read that Notre Dame surprisingly leans toward staying with the football schools (as a non-football member, of course) with an agreement to play a handful of BE teams each year. I guess it is impossible to have the Big East football conference without some angst against Notre Dame. :)

There seems to be some buzz that the Big East will be having a meeting this week to discuss its future and that a football/basketball split could be coming by the beginning of July (which would, I believe, give the 8-football schools enough years together to have credit for an autobid for tourneys).

A lesser rumor seems to be that another conference may have approached Pitt and WVU (and that may be what is spurring this meeting). Big 12 maybe?

I'd hate to see Big East basketball split up.

Since the Miami/VT/BC defections, Big East Football has always seemed like just this group of leftover schools. No real identity or rilvaries. Big East basketball on the other hand, seems like a great brand.

I'd hate to see Big East basketball split up.

Since the Miami/VT/BC defections, Big East Football has always seemed like just this group of leftover schools. No real identity or rilvaries. Big East basketball on the other hand, seems like a great brand.

I agree and I would hate to see Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and Madison Square Garden go, but having Providence dictate our football moves is getting old.

I agree and I would hate to see Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and Madison Square Garden go, but having Providence dictate our football moves is getting old.

yy, I love the Big East as it currently stands (basketball-wise)

I agree and I would hate to see Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and Madison Square Garden go, but having Providence dictate our football moves is getting old.


I understand how Texas has the weight behind them to pretty much dictate what happens in the Big 12... but how does Providence have any pull in any of those discussions? Shouldn't everyone else just say, "You're lucky you aren't in the Atlantic-10"

Hmm...it's too bad the Big East and ACC can't somehow come up with a coalition agreement allowing their basketball operations to stay more-or-less separate - but maybe play a challenge like the Big 10/ACC Challenge - while pooling their football resources.

It might even be a case where a relegation system could work. Duke, Wake, NC State, Syracuse, Louisville, Maryland? You guys are relegated to the lower division. You don't like that? Get good enough to knock someone out of the upper division. FSU, Clemson, BC, GT, VT, Miami, WVU, Rutgers, Pitt, Cincy? Stay on your toes.

Not being a soccer fan, I've never much liked relegation systems.

I understand how Texas has the weight behind them to pretty much dictate what happens in the Big 12... but how does Providence have any pull in any of those discussions? Shouldn't everyone else just say, "You're lucky you aren't in the Atlantic-10"

The league has had three commisioners (Dave Gavitt, Mike Tranghese, and John Marinatto) in its history and all of come out of the Providence athletic department. Gavitt was the AD at Providence and became the first commisioner and Tranghese was his right hand man throughout his tenure and was the natural successor (and rightfully so, by most accounts). When Tranghese retired last year, most folks thought it would be an opportunity to get in some fresh blood and improve the status of the conference, but we ended up with a guy that spent his entire career inside the Providence athletic department (from undergrad assistant manager manager to athletic director).

Here is a snippet from an ESPN blog entry a few weeks ago that pretty much sums up the longstanding thinking of the Big East leadership:

Big East commissioner John Marinatto was riding in a cab in New York City with Paul Tagliabue a couple of weeks ago when he mentioned the new offices the league had moved into in Providence, R.I.

There was enough space in the new building, Marinatto suggested, to erect a studio for a possible Big East Network. Tagliabue quickly corrected him.

"John," he said, "we're not building a studio in Providence. We'll build a studio next to the 'Today' show in Rockefeller Center. You'll look out and see people in downtown New York City. That will be our studio."

yy, I love the Big East as it currently stands (basketball-wise)

I love it, too, and I think the BE tournament is one if the best sporting events around (I'd love to attend for a week, once my kid gets a little older). But, would you love it any less if it had Memphis and UCF rather than Seton Hall and Providence? That would raise the football inventory and exposure without hurting the basketball product, at all.

We have a commisioner who isn't even capable of thinking outside the box enough to realize that we could headquarter the league (and showcase it) in NYC, rather than Providence, RI.

But, would you love it any less if it had Memphis and UCF rather than Seton Hall and Providence?

And Georgetown, and Villanova, and St. John's. I think it would lose something.

A Big East basketball conference of Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, Syracuse, Memphis, and UCF (and Pitt and West Virginia if they don't leave) is very blah....I just wouldn't be excited about going to NYC to see that in March. Maybe it's just a matter of what I'm used to, but that's a pretty boring conference.

I would have loved to have been there for the UConn Syracuse game last year

I can picture it if the ACC decide to go to 16 and raided the BE. Getting schools like UConn, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, or Syracuse would create an awesome basketball conference.

I can picture it if the ACC decide to go to 16 and raided the BE. Getting schools like UConn, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, or Syracuse would create an awesome basketball conference.

I know why people might want this. But dammit, I want my small ACC back. :(

/tk

And Georgetown, and Villanova, and St. John's. I think it would lose something.

A Big East basketball conference of Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, Syracuse, Memphis, and UCF (and Pitt and West Virginia if they don't leave) is very blah....I just wouldn't be excited about going to NYC to see that in March. Maybe it's just a matter of what I'm used to, but that's a pretty boring conference.

How about we invite 'Nova, Georgetown, St. John's and Notre Dame to a 10-team football league? :)

Not being a soccer fan, I've never much liked relegation systems.

Personally, what I like most about a promotion relegation system is that it forces everyone to fight in every game. In a lot of sports, once your out of the playoffs or whatnot you see teams stop trying, or trade away their best players, because their is no real consequence for finishing at the bottom(in fact they get the best draft picks). In a promotion relegation system, teams are fighting to win no matter where in the table they stand, which ultimately makes the league better as a whole and a more entertaining product for fans.

There seems to be some buzz that the Big East will be having a meeting this week to discuss its future and that a football/basketball split could be coming by the beginning of July (which would, I believe, give the 8-football schools enough years together to have credit for an autobid for tourneys).

A lesser rumor seems to be that another conference may have approached Pitt and WVU (and that may be what is spurring this meeting). Big 12 maybe?

I've heard WVU has been selling itself to the ACC and SEC. ACC is the most likely destination, but with the Big 12 saving itself there's no real hurry on the ACC or SEC's part to do anything. Right now WVU is looking for a solid/attractive partner to do a package deal with to one conference or the other.

No one seems to be looking at Big East football as a long term home at this point. It's really just waiting for the inevitable.

relegation isn't practical for US sports. In the English league, you have a ton of teams within a small geographic location. If the Pac-10 or MLB was just based in part of California (ie, Orange County, 3-4 LA teams, Santa Monica, Anaheim, ...), they could do a relegation system. The problem is you are risking losing a Chicago, LA, Boston, New York or other major TV market with relegation in the current city format. If the Cubs, Mets or White Sox got relegated to AAA, it would severely impact the revenue to MLB. It's just not practical.

That's why the proposed relegation system divides the country into geographic regions. It would work fine.

I can picture it if the ACC decide to go to 16 and raided the BE. Getting schools like UConn, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, or Syracuse would create an awesome basketball conference.


never forget expansion is all about money...

FSU, VT, and Clemson all made more money off football revenue individually last year than the entire ACC did off basketball...no conference will be formed for the basis of making better basketball relations.

Oklahoma president says Sooners, A&M got invite from SEC - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-06-23-oklahoma-texas-am-sec_N.htm?csp=obinsite)

I have little doubt we'll see a lot of these stories in the coming months as the dealings behind closed doors are revealed, though most of them have already been exposed through the rumor mills.

relegation isn't practical for US sports. In the English league, you have a ton of teams within a small geographic location. If the Pac-10 or MLB was just based in part of California (ie, Orange County, 3-4 LA teams, Santa Monica, Anaheim, ...), they could do a relegation system. The problem is you are risking losing a Chicago, LA, Boston, New York or other major TV market with relegation in the current city format. If the Cubs, Mets or White Sox got relegated to AAA, it would severely impact the revenue to MLB. It's just not practical.

If they had a relegation system, the ownership of the other big market teams would have to spend like Boston and New York to avoid huge losses of TV revenue. Mediocre small teams who just want to bank profits without fielding a competitive team would have to build better teams to keep those profits coming. Those that get relegated are more apt to be sold to someone who wants to bring them back to higher level, getting rid of those old owners.

My sources say Missouri was begging to join the Sunbelt Conference but the Sunbelt didn't want to lower their standards.

If they had a relegation system, the ownership of the other big market teams would have to spend like Boston and New York to avoid huge losses of TV revenue. Mediocre small teams who just want to bank profits without fielding a competitive team would have to build better teams to keep those profits coming. Those that get relegated are more apt to be sold to someone who wants to bring them back to higher level, getting rid of those old owners.

OK - so in addition to screwing up history by changing the participants in a league every year or so, you'd add the instability that constant changing ownership brings.

WHERE DO WE SIGN UP?

In other news ...

ACC, ESPN reach 12-year television rights deal - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5363743)

Swofford = Moron...that is all.

E-mails between Mizzou and Big 12 offices were released. Any e-mails concerning negotiations between Big Ten and MU were held back since they were directly related to the negotiation of a contract that was not executed.

Behind scenes, Big 12 focused on public relations - Sports | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jul/18/behind-scenes-big-12-focused-on-public-relations/?sports#)

They also appear to have held back the one where Mizzou resigned from the Big 12.

Not sure this means much, but figured I would pass it along:

hxxp://www.footballoutsiders.com/college-xp/2010/big-ten-might-pick-big-apple

Not surprising, but it took just over a month for more grumbling in the Big 12 to re-emerge. A&M wants the $20 payout that was orally guaranteed in writing or it will open up legal options and/or begin negotiations with the SEC. If this conference doesn't blow up in 2011, it will definitely separate in 2012. Most Mizzou fans after reading this are likely wishing that A&M would have just gone to the SEC so this could have been all resolved right now. Hanging on in the Big 12 for another year or two isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

A&M expects $20 million annually from Big 12 | Texas A&M college | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texasam/7129321.html)

Texas A&M is quite delusional it seems.

Texas A&M is quite delusional it seems.Yet, if they leave, that removes the anchor keeping Texas in the league. So it seems TAMU has quite a bit of leverage.

Yet, if they leave, that removes the anchor keeping Texas in the league. So it seems TAMU has quite a bit of leverage.

I consider them to be a marginally decent program and the fact they were even offered 20 million is shocking. I expect we all will be here talking about conference expansion in a year.

Not surprising, but it took just over a month for more grumbling in the Big 12 to re-emerge. A&M wants the $20 payout that was orally guaranteed in writing or it will open up legal options and/or begin negotiations with the SEC. If this conference doesn't blow up in 2011, it will definitely separate in 2012. Most Mizzou fans after reading this are likely wishing that A&M would have just gone to the SEC so this could have been all resolved right now. Hanging on in the Big 12 for another year or two isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

A&M expects $20 million annually from Big 12 | Texas A&M college | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texasam/7129321.html)

I agree. I wish A&M had taken the SEC route and imploded the conference. Though I think this activity we're seeing from A&M is simply posturing for the fans after the backlash of not accepting the SEC invite. I don't think A&M leaves now, but I definitely think that A&M splitting off from Texas will eventually happen.

The website Orangebloods.com was breaking most of the news during that time largely through unnamed sources. It went from being the first to report that the six schools were strongly considering the Pac-10 to detailing the hectic hours as the Big 12 saved itself with the promise of a windfall increase in future television revenue. Scott, though, seemed to suggest that the reporting was driven by a Texas source or sources with an agenda.

"We weren't trying to publicize what we were doing," Scott said. "We were going about it for four months quietly behind the scenes. It's really Texas [that] leaked the plan as they were going into those Big 12 meetings in Kansas City, I think, hoping to keep Nebraska, hoping to keep the Big 12 together."

Asked what person or persons may have leaked the information Scott said, "I don't know ... It could only be a small [amount of people] who knew what was going on."


Wait ... so ... Chip Brown's source was ... WITHIN THE TEXAS ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT??????? I'd have never guessed!!! :eek: :lol:

Wait ... so ... Chip Brown's source was ... WITHIN THE TEXAS ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT??????? I'd have never guessed!!! :eek: :lol:

That had to be one of the biggest jokes of this whole farce over the summer. Chip Brown was selling out his journalistic integrity and it was embarrassing to watch. He was a UT mouthpiece and everyone knew it.

Here's the full article.

Pac-10's Scott blames Texas for his plan's demise - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13681330/pac10s-scott-blames-texas-for-his-plans-demise)

That had to be one of the biggest jokes of this whole farce over the summer. Chip Brown was selling out his journalistic integrity and it was embarrassing to watch. He was a UT mouthpiece and everyone knew it.

Here's the full article.

Pac-10's Scott blames Texas for his plan's demise - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13681330/pac10s-scott-blames-texas-for-his-plans-demise)

I'm interested to see how you believe this is any different than Mike DeArmond's coverage of Missouri? Like DeArmond, Chip Brown has a lot of money tied to his coverage of a specific program and the sources he has there. If Texas tells Chip Brown to jump he says how high. The same can be said for DeArmond.

That had to be one of the biggest jokes of this whole farce over the summer. Chip Brown was selling out his journalistic integrity and it was embarrassing to watch. He was a UT mouthpiece and everyone knew it.

Here's the full article.

Pac-10's Scott blames Texas for his plan's demise - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13681330/pac10s-scott-blames-texas-for-his-plans-demise)

Well, except for those Woodward and Bernstein characters. They were a mouthpiece for Deep Throat and everyone knew it.

I'm interested to see how you believe this is any different than Mike DeArmond's coverage of Missouri? Like DeArmond, Chip Brown has a lot of money tied to his coverage of a specific program and the sources he has there. If Texas tells Chip Brown to jump he says how high. The same can be said for DeArmond.

I certainly appreciate your attempt, but you've displayed a great lack of understanding concerning the two situations if you think the two are in any way comparable. Alden and the Athletic Department head are at odds all the time. Dodds had a hand up Brown's ass. It's not even close to comparable.

Got it. So the guy whose sources were dead-on with their info is bad, but the guy who leaked that his sources said Mizzou to the Big 10 was a 'done deal and the contract is signed' is a paragon of journalism.

Got it. So the guy whose sources were dead-on with their info is bad, but the guy who leaked that his sources said Mizzou to the Big 10 was a 'done deal and the contract is signed' is a paragon of journalism.

Damn it! You beat me to it!

Wait ... so ... Chip Brown's source was ... WITHIN THE TEXAS ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT??????? I'd have never guessed!!! :eek: :lol:

I'm not sure where the issue is? I thought you guys said Chip Brown was right, yet now you are laughing at the fact that he is the mouthpiece of Texas? Isn't what happened exactly what Chip Brown reported? Why dismiss what he said? Most reporters would kill for a source as good as the AD, who fed him everything he needed to make this a big issue? I think he's stupid to try and take on the PAC-10 commish, but I think that's mostly an arrogance issue

I'm not sure where the issue is? I thought you guys said Chip Brown was right, yet now you are laughing at the fact that he is the mouthpiece of Texas? Isn't what happened exactly what Chip Brown reported? Why dismiss what he said? Most reporters would kill for a source as good as the AD, who fed him everything he needed to make this a big issue? I think he's stupid to try and take on the PAC-10 commish, but I think that's mostly an arrogance issue

Oh I dont believe i ever argued he was wrong, but people like you and cartman were saying how Mizzou was this horrible athletic department leaking details left and right when the only school that has been proven to leak confidential details is Texas. If your going to point fingers at schools for being unprofessional if you will, point them at the proper places.

Oh I dont believe i ever argued he was wrong, but people like you and cartman were saying how Mizzou was this horrible athletic department leaking details left and right when the only school that has been proven to leak confidential details is Texas. If your going to point fingers at schools for being unprofessional if you will, point them at the proper places.

I never said that about Mizzou's athletic department.

Oh I dont believe i ever argued he was wrong, but people like you and cartman were saying how Mizzou was this horrible athletic department leaking details left and right when the only school that has been proven to leak confidential details is Texas. If your going to point fingers at schools for being unprofessional if you will, point them at the proper places.

In hindsight, I think the Missouri athletic department handled things fairly well in the public. Some of the professors, government officials, etc did not handle things so well, but Mike Alden and his coaches kept things fairly civil.

I'm not sure why MBBF still defends Mike DeArmond though aside from DeArmond being a poster on his website.

Chip Brown didn't paint a completely accurate picture of what was going on with the Pac-10 wooing Texas and other Big-12 schools, but he put out far more accurate info than just about anyone else. Yes, it was skewed by the fact it was being fed to him by Texas officials, but it was still highly informative. I fail to see how this is a bad thing - reporters are almost always only as good as their sources, and while Brown's sources in this particular matter were from a distinct viewpoint, they were also talking. We weren't getting that level of info elsewhere.

I do find it funny how he's trying to claim he wasn't getting fed info from Dodds or Brown. Maybe that's technically true, but c'mon Brown - everyone knows you were getting your info from the Texas athletic department.

Got it. So the guy whose sources were dead-on with their info is bad, but the guy who leaked that his sources said Mizzou to the Big 10 was a 'done deal and the contract is signed' is a paragon of journalism.

What in the world are you talking about? Link where Mike DeArmond (KC Star reporter) ever said that? And Brown was dead-on? I suppose you're correct that he was dead-on with his UT information (not surprising given the AD was feeding the info), but the rest of his information concerning any other schools was spotty at best.

I guess it's easier to make it about MBBF than to actually discuss just how badly Brown compromised his integrity in this matter.

What in the world are you talking about? Link where Mike DeArmond (KC Star reporter) ever said that? And Brown was dead-on? I suppose you're correct that he was dead-on with his UT information (not surprising given the AD was feeding the info), but the rest of his information concerning any other schools was spotty at best.

I guess it's easier to make it about MBBF than to actually discuss just how badly Brown compromised his integrity in this matter.

I never have mentioned the name Mike DeArmond in any of my posts. I was going off of whatever sources you were using earlier in the thread to make your pronouncements that it is all but a done deal and the FOIA that was denied showed there was a contract in place.

This is hilarious. The guy works for a site called Orangebloods.com and gets paid to cover Texas recruiting and athletics. Who would you expect his sources to be?

I guess it's easier to make it about MBBF than to actually discuss just how badly Brown compromised his integrity in this matter.

I think it is some what about you simply because you act like you're so much up in arms about Chip Brown, but you're willing to defend a guy like Mike DeArmond. For once I just wish you'd hold the same standards for your favorites (teams, reporters, etc) as you do with others. Otherwise your arguments are watered down simply because you're such a hypocrite when the shoe is on the other foot.

You've even suggested previously that DeArmond sat on a negative story at Missouri for weeks without any reason. He sat on that story until finally another paper researched the issue and then and only then did he cover the story. DeArmond didn't sit on that story for weeks because he had better things to cover, lol.

Chip Brown didn't paint a completely accurate picture of what was going on with the Pac-10 wooing Texas and other Big-12 schools, but he put out far more accurate info than just about anyone else. Yes, it was skewed by the fact it was being fed to him by Texas officials, but it was still highly informative. I fail to see how this is a bad thing - reporters are almost always only as good as their sources, and while Brown's sources in this particular matter were from a distinct viewpoint, they were also talking. We weren't getting that level of info elsewhere.

I do find it funny how he's trying to claim he wasn't getting fed info from Dodds or Brown. Maybe that's technically true, but c'mon Brown - everyone knows you were getting your info from the Texas athletic department.

Exactly my feelings. Chip Brown was the only one releasing some what viable information at a time when a lot of people were just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

As for his denial regarding Dodds, he's simply protecting his sources. He knows he can't come out and say where he is getting his information from without destroying those connections, but most of us know the truth based on his old ties to the Texas athletic department.

I never have mentioned the name Mike DeArmond in any of my posts. I was going off of whatever sources you were using earlier in the thread to make your pronouncements that it is all but a done deal and the FOIA that was denied showed there was a contract in place.

So you brought up something that had nothing to do with what was being discussed just to flame. I don't think anyone's surprised, but at least you're being honest now.

Oh I dont believe i ever argued he was wrong, but people like you and cartman were saying how Mizzou was this horrible athletic department leaking details left and right when the only school that has been proven to leak confidential details is Texas. If your going to point fingers at schools for being unprofessional if you will, point them at the proper places.

Where did we say it was a horrible athletic department except tongue in cheek? I think we might have said it didn't do a good job of safeguarding information if random posters like Mizzou fan can find out information with a snap of a finger.

Would you rather the information come from someone within the athletic department or the seasonal custodian who spoke with a student who had a class with Zaviar Gooden?

So you brought up something that had nothing to do with what was being discussed just to flame. I don't think anyone's surprised, but at least you're being honest now.

You cannot possibly be that dense. You are either the most naive fool I've ever had the displeasure to run across, or you are a pathetic example of trolling.

Only in MBBF land can it be that he incorrectly describes the statement of someone else, and then that person is in the wrong. Incredibly obtuse.

Where did we say it was a horrible athletic department except tongue in cheek? I think we might have said it didn't do a good job of safeguarding information if random posters like Mizzou fan can find out information with a snap of a finger.

Would you rather the information come from someone within the athletic department or the seasonal custodian who spoke with a student who had a class with Zaviar Gooden?

Honestly in these situations id rather the information not come out at all, because for good or bad it will create the unholy mess we witnessed all over the country. In my ideal world, all is done behind closed doors quietly and then what happens happens. That is prob. not a realistic dream, but I find that a preferable option then the shitstorm that actually took place.

Honestly in these situations id rather the information not come out at all, because for good or bad it will create the unholy mess we witnessed all over the country. In my ideal world, all is done behind closed doors quietly and then what happens happens. That is prob. not a realistic dream, but I find that a preferable option then the shitstorm that actually took place.

From your perspective, I would agree

Honestly in these situations id rather the information not come out at all, because for good or bad it will create the unholy mess we witnessed all over the country. In my ideal world, all is done behind closed doors quietly and then what happens happens. That is prob. not a realistic dream, but I find that a preferable option then the shitstorm that actually took place.

Well your idea worked well enough for the US constitution.

You cannot possibly be that dense. You are either the most naive fool I've ever had the displeasure to run across, or you are a pathetic example of trolling.

Only in MBBF land can it be that he incorrectly describes the statement of someone else, and then that person is in the wrong. Incredibly obtuse.

If I'm that big of a problem, put me on your ignore list. The rest of the board will be thankful you did so.

A log to put on the slowly dying embers:

Memphis To Big East, Says Another Radio Station - SBNation.com (http://www.sbnation.com/2010/8/1/1600412/memphis-big-east-conference-join-conference-usa-tigers-fedex-kentucky-radio-sports)

I'm somewhat skeptical because while it sorta works to move the football membership to 9 teams (balanced home-and-away conference schedules), it would make basketball nightmarish with 17 members to sort out. If the Big 10 is plotting to take some Big East members soon or the Catholic non-football schools are ready to jump ship, then this makes much more sense. I haven't heard anything like that going on, though.

If I'm that big of a problem, put me on your ignore list. The rest of the board will be thankful you did so.
No, I quite enjoy him pointing out your blind homerism and logical fallacies.

No, I quite enjoy him pointing out your blind homerism and logical fallacies.

It doesn't have anything to do with that. Someone else made the same assertion I did and it didn't draw flies. I make a similar assertion and the thread erupts. It's amusing I suppose, but his rebuttal is more blind homerism than what I posted.

I don't think anyone would be surprised by A&M already making back-door agreements. In fact, it makes perfect sense. They're laying the framework to depart from the Big 12 by their comments last week concerning the $20M guarantee by the commish. They know that the Big 12 isn't going to be able to make that happen.

A&M To SEC In 2013? - I Am The 12th Man (http://www.iamthe12thman.com/2010/8/1/1600223/a-m-to-sec-in-2013)

A log to put on the slowly dying embers:

Memphis To Big East, Says Another Radio Station - SBNation.com (http://www.sbnation.com/2010/8/1/1600412/memphis-big-east-conference-join-conference-usa-tigers-fedex-kentucky-radio-sports)

I'm somewhat skeptical because while it sorta works to move the football membership to 9 teams (balanced home-and-away conference schedules), it would make basketball nightmarish with 17 members to sort out. If the Big 10 is plotting to take some Big East members soon or the Catholic non-football schools are ready to jump ship, then this makes much more sense. I haven't heard anything like that going on, though.

I'm sure I have probably said this earlier in this thread, but even though there aren't any good options, I kind of wish the Big East would just add another team so that they could have a 4 home/4 away conference schedule. Plus, if/when some combination of Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt leave, we'll have a little bit bigger nucleus remaining.

I don't think anyone would be surprised by A&M already making back-door agreements. In fact, it makes perfect sense. They're laying the framework to depart from the Big 12 by their comments last week concerning the $20M guarantee by the commish. They know that the Big 12 isn't going to be able to make that happen.

A&M To SEC In 2013? - I Am The 12th Man (http://www.iamthe12thman.com/2010/8/1/1600223/a-m-to-sec-in-2013)

Just from a purely observational standpoint, I would be interested to see if Texas has enough gravitational pull to help pull a team like Houston or SMU or TCU (although, I understand they already have a BCS-like budget) up to the the level of a competitive Big 12(ish) team. I'm guessing A&M could be replaced pretty quickly by another in-state team (which would probably hurt A&M, Tech, and Baylor in recruiting).

Just from a purely observational standpoint, I would be interested to see if Texas has enough gravitational pull to help pull a team like Houston or SMU or TCU (although, I understand they already have a BCS-like budget) up to the the level of a competitive Big 12(ish) team. I'm guessing A&M could be replaced pretty quickly by another in-state team (which would probably hurt A&M, Tech, and Baylor in recruiting).

Will Texas still be interested in staying in the Big 12 if A&M leaves? There's reasons to stay or go.

As for adding teams, I don't think the Big 12 will be adding any more Texas schools. I think if they add a team they might look at a footprint they don't already have.

Will Texas still be interested in staying in the Big 12 if A&M leaves? There's reasons to stay or go.

As for adding teams, I don't think the Big 12 will be adding any more Texas schools. I think if they add a team they might look at a footprint they don't already have.
At this point I'm not sure A&M leaving would be enough to collapse the Big-"12" - from a competitive standpoint, bringing TCU in to the mix would be basically a wash. But I don't know if any of those other Texas schools (TCU included) would draw as many eyeballs as A&M.

Seems inevitable that the Big-"12" is going to collapse, probably sooner than later. And the Pac-12 will be waiting...

I can see A&M wanting to get out of the Texas shadow. If they go to the SEC and the rest go West. Thats a HUGE reruiting advantage for A&M.

If the Big-12 does implode, it will be interesting to see what the Pac-12 can do. Presumably they will only have 4 slots to offer, which will make it hard to bring in both Texas and Oklahoma.

Also, what exactly does A&M offer to the SEC? I guess the SEC West teams would get a bit of a bump in recruiting Texas kids, but it’s not like those teams are struggling to attract talent now.

If the Big-12 does implode, it will be interesting to see what the Pac-12 can do. Presumably they will only have 4 slots to offer, which will make it hard to bring in both Texas and Oklahoma.

Why do you say this?

If the Big-12 does implode, it will be interesting to see what the Pac-12 can do. Presumably they will only have 4 slots to offer, which will make it hard to bring in both Texas and Oklahoma.

Also, what exactly does A&M offer to the SEC? I guess the SEC West teams would get a bit of a bump in recruiting Texas kids, but it’s not like those teams are struggling to attract talent now.
I don't think it would be that hard. It would be Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and then a battle between the Pac-12 wanting Kansas and the Texas State Legislature trying to force Baylor on us (which won't happen).

Yeah, if the big 12 implodes and A&M leaves, Texas, OU, OSU and either TT/Kansas will all head to the Pac-10.

Yeah, if the big 12 implodes and A&M leaves, Texas, OU, OSU and either TT/Kansas will all head to the Pac-10.
D'oh - forgot about TT. Yeah, highly likely they'd be the 4th team. Kansas missed their chance when expansion didn't happen this offseason and Utah got the invite Kansas likely would have gotten.

Why do you say this?

Well, you would have to fit 5 teams (UT, OU, OSU, TT and Baylor) into 4 slots. So the Pac-12 would have to convince Texas to drop Baylor instead of just adding TCU to the Big-12, and there is no way that TCU would be getting the revenue share that A&M was getting. Judging from how Texas approached this last round of negotiating, I can guess which scenario they would like better.

Edit to add:
this of course changes if other conferences pull teams out of the Big-12, which could very easily happen.

Well, you would have to fit 5 teams (UT, OU, OSU, TT and Baylor) into 4 slots. So the Pac-12 would have to convince Texas to drop Baylor instead of just adding TCU to the Big-12, and there is no way that TCU would be getting the revenue share that A&M was getting. Judging from how Texas approached this last round of negotiating, I can guess which scenario they would like better.

I dont think Texas would need to be convinced to drop Baylor. They didn't care about them this past round of expansion and I doubt they would the next time

From Jim Delany at Big Ten media day:

"I don't know if it (Big 12) will hold together or not."

"I don't see them as a player, really." Delany says of ND in expansion. "I see ND in the big East for many years to come.

"We'll pause, but we're not necessarily turning our back on [future] expansion."

Give this guy credit. He knows how to play his cards in what seems like a neutral manner while throwing the other players into a state of fear or chaos. I'll be glad when he finishes up his moves and busts up the rest of the Big 12.

Delaney also mentioned how in 3-4 years he expects the Big 10 to have 9 conference games. That'd mean 5 road games every other year just from the conference alone. Will be interesting to see if that means any of the B10 teams will stop scheduling ND.

The Big East explored the possibility of adding four Big 12 teams had the Big 12 disbanded in June, a Big East source told SNY.tv.

The Big East would have targeted Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Missouri, swelling its ranks to 12 football teams and 20 basketball programs, the source said.

"For the 24 hours where it looked like they were leaving [the Big 12], then this idea had legs," the source said Tuesday at Big East football media day.


:popcorn:

Baylor would have made more sense then ISU

There is a bit of smoke coming out that the Big East is making a push to have Villanova make the jump up to FBS. The non-football BE schools have been against adding another football playing team, but it appears as if there has been an increasing threat to split and 3 or 4 of the non-football schools have recognized that without the football schools, revenues will go down considerably and their ADs will no longer be functional. The Big East schools have supposedly agreed to help finance the move for Villanova (which sounds like a dreadful idea to me), but school officials are worried that they will not be able to adequately fund a program and meet the Title IX required by additional football scholarships. Georgetown may also have a similar offer, but is not seriously considering the move.

Kind of interesting scenario and worth keeping an ear open to see if anything comes of this.

Villanova has been adamant about not having an interest in moving up for years. It doesn't make sense for them. Some smoke maybe, but no fire.

The Big East needs to just add Memphis and UCF and get it over with.

Villanova has been adamant about not having an interest in moving up for years. It doesn't make sense for them. Some smoke maybe, but no fire.

yeah, it's been a popular rumor since all the re-alignment stuff started. it's mostly from the b.e. blogosphere.

the cuse community has desperately wanted the conf. to lean on the non-fb schools but it's not going to happen. the providence guys that run the league only care about hoops.

Looks like Purple Book Cat has finally come out of the woodwork after a two month hiatus over at the Northwestern Rivals board. He was the poster who was feeding information directly from the Big Ten meetings and correctly predicted the Nebraska move. Here's his latest post on what the Big Ten is doing behind the scenes to reel in Notre Dame and Texas.

"I had a delightful chat tonight with my friend again over a Fireplace Inn rack of ribs. We've been in touch over the last few months, but nothing really newsworthy since the addition of Nebraska that wasn't all over the press. Tonight, however, my friend shed some light on the Big Ten strategy with regard to Notre Dame.

One of the reasons the Big Ten is pushing the 9 game schedule right now (in particular, without pushing the 13 game schedule) relates specifically to Notre Dame. The brass still believes that it can pull Notre Dame, and therefore Texas, into the league. Switching to the 9 game schedule, aside from allowing Big Ten schools to play each other more often, serves an alternate purpose - one much more important in the Big Ten's view. Michigan State, Purdue, and Michigan will feel significant pressure to remove Notre Dame from their schedule, or at least limit matchups, in subsequent years.

Those three schools will need to make some tough scheduling choices when they lose one of their nonconference games. The Big Ten brass is betting that the Boilers, Spartans, and Wolverines are going to have a pretty steep disincentive to lock in to never playing any other BCS-level opponents in the non-conference schedule. Clearly Northwestern has among the cupcakiest of cupcake schedules. But even the traditional powers like to schedule their creampuffs once in awhile (like Appalachian State, right Michigan?) What school would want to schedule a quality BCS noncon opponent, Notre Dame, and then face NINE Big Ten games? (At least this is what Jim is thinking.)

If you haven't heard the news, Notre Dame and Texas have been talking - to the point where they scheduled a series. The timing is no coincidence. These two schools have met and will continue to regularly meet to discuss the terms of their mutual entry into the Big Ten conference. Jim wants to counter ND's position by making the alternative painful for the Irish. The loss, or potential loss, of its longstanding, regularly scheduled Big Ten rivals is an event that may rise to the threshold necessary to force Notre Dame's hand. Even if ND loses only one or two games of its Michigan, MSU, and Purdue rivalries each year, this will alter the course of ND's independence and prestige significantly.

The Texas situation is less clear. Since we have been talking, there have been intra-school elements at Texas pulling the school in different directions. The Big Ten is betting that Texas isn't going to stay very content in the Big 12 as is, and that the ND joint option will unify enough school and political support to enable Texas to gravitate toward the Big Ten superconference.

The strategy is still there, and Delany is still a genius in my purple book."

Looks like Purple Book Cat has finally come out of the woodwork after a two month hiatus over at the Northwestern Rivals board. He was the poster who was feeding information directly from the Big Ten meetings and correctly predicted the Nebraska move. Here's his latest post on what the Big Ten is doing behind the scenes to reel in Notre Dame and Texas.
The 9 game schedule is an interesting strategy, and as a way to lure Notre Dame it makes sense, because otherwise it hurts the conference in terms of BCS berths (much like it has the Pac-10).

As far as Texas goes, I'll believe them joining the Big Ten when I see it. I think there's no way in hell Texas politics will allow Texas to jump into another league without taking other Texas schools with them. A&M will be OK since they appear to have an invite to the SEC, but even that split of the rivalry will upset many in Texas. What will kill Texas to the Big Ten is leaving Tech and Baylor behind.

The Pac-10's refusal to take Baylor may kill an eventual Pac-16 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Tech coming on board, but that's a far more likely scenario than Texas being allowed to jump solo to the Big Ten.

I want my
I want my
I want my Conference 'm'geddon.

Even if ND loses only one or two games of its Michigan, MSU, and Purdue rivalries each year, this will alter the course of ND's independence and prestige significantly.

LOL

At least 2 of those 3 could vanish from the ND schedule without any real ill effect to the prestige of the Irish, and at the rate things are going it may not be long until all 3 could.

I really, really dislike the lack of quality OOC games and think/hope the Big Ten would get punished, by voters, if they refuse to play any OOC games against other BCS conferences (not saying that they will, since this is just a writer or poster).

It is hard enough to measure teams who do not play against one another against one another, but it helps give some point of reference if your conference won or lost a lot of games to quality teams and you are the best team in that conference. I think the Big Ten is one of the top conferences, but winning the conference in a year when the only outside measuring stick (prior to bowl season) is playing against MAC or subdivision teams doesn't really show me much if there are undefeated teams from other power conferences.

I really, really dislike the lack of quality OOC games and think/hope the Big Ten would get punished, by voters, if they refuse to play any OOC games against other BCS conferences (not saying that they will, since this is just a writer or poster).

It is hard enough to measure teams who do not play against one another against one another, but it helps give some point of reference if your conference won or lost a lot of games to quality teams and you are the best team in that conference. I think the Big Ten is one of the top conferences, but winning the conference in a year when the only outside measuring stick (prior to bowl season) is playing against MAC or subdivision teams doesn't really show me much if there are undefeated teams from other power conferences.

Well it should be noted Michigan is rumored to be playing Alabama in 2012, Michigan State has future games vs West Virginia and Alabama, OSU has always played tough OOC games. Penn State has Bama this year.

I doubt much changes in that regards.

Well it should be noted Michigan is rumored to be playing Alabama in 2012, Michigan State has future games vs West Virginia and Alabama, OSU has always played tough OOC games. Penn State has Bama this year.

I doubt much changes in that regards.

Also, they will have a championship game now. One extra hurdle to prove they are worthy.

I am not sure any of the BCS conference teams are all that different in regards to their schedules. They all play about 1 quality game and 2-3 creampuffs. All the way from Kansas or Washington State up to Texas or Ohio State. Sometimes people think the Pac-10 is the only conference playing big boys but wouldn't all of the teams playing USC, Oregon, Arizona State, UCLA (in the past) be doing to same thing?

There are only so many PAC-10 teams to go around

Side note that really isnt important, but why would you put UCLA with in the past in parenthesis?

There are only so many PAC-10 teams to go around

Side note that really isnt important, but why would you put UCLA with in the past in parenthesis?

Seriously? They haven't been that good in the past couple of years. I was saying most people won't argue that Texas playing UCLA at home is a challenging game for Texas.

EDIT: Of course they are a team that no BCS team wants to face in LA and that most would have some trouble with at home. Plus they have a great past. But they aren't even top 50 material the last 4-5 years.

That's a pretty ignorant answer then

That's a pretty ignorant answer then

I realize you are a UCLA fan and did not include the "UCLA (in the past)" part to signify any sort of disagreement with UCLA fans. I was merely saying they were a huge game for somebody about 4-5 years ago. The UCLA-Texas game won't even be close. I bet you right now the line is at least 17 points.

I realize you are a UCLA fan and did not include the "UCLA (in the past)" part to signify any sort of disagreement with UCLA fans. I was merely saying they were a huge game for somebody about 4-5 years ago. The UCLA-Texas game won't even be close. I bet you right now the line is at least 17 points.

Fair enough on the disagreement, but UCLA has always played a tough OOC schedule. I'm not delusional to think that teams play UCLA because its UCLA but because of where they play. There are three teams who have never played a Div-1AA team and I will let you guess which conference claims all three teams.

As for the Texas-UCLA game this year, there aren't too many teams in the country that Texas won't be too concerned about. Mack Brown isn't a fool, so I'm pretty sure he is aware of how bad his team lost last time he faced UCLA.

And your initial statement was pretty ignorant. You took the time to include (in the past) on UCLA, but you somehow think Arizona State is relevant on any stage? That's ignoring the fact that they are playing two cream puffs and are a bad example of any PAC-10 scheduling argument

Fair enough on the disagreement, but UCLA has always played a tough OOC schedule. I'm not delusional to think that teams play UCLA because its UCLA but because of where they play. There are three teams who have never played a Div-1AA team and I will let you guess which conference claims all three teams.

As for the Texas-UCLA game this year, there aren't too many teams in the country that Texas won't be too concerned about. Mack Brown isn't a fool, so I'm pretty sure he is aware of how bad his team lost last time he faced UCLA.

And your initial statement was pretty ignorant. You took the time to include (in the past) on UCLA, but you somehow think Arizona State is relevant on any stage? That's ignoring the fact that they are playing two cream puffs and are a bad example of any PAC-10 scheduling argument

Honestly my intial statement was going to be USC, Oregon, and UCLA and then I thought about it and UCLA hasn't been great the past few years so I added Arizona State as a third. (obviously mistakenly thinking they were a big player in the pac-10). I remember that undefeated stretch they had a few years ago and forgot how it turned out. I just never took UCLA out, not thinking it would make you (or anyone) mad.

Honestly my intial statement was going to be USC, Oregon, and UCLA and then I thought about it and UCLA hasn't been great the past few years so I added Arizona State as a third. (obviously mistakenly thinking they were a big player in the pac-10). I remember that undefeated stretch they had a few years ago and forgot how it turned out. I just never took UCLA out, not thinking it would make you (or anyone) mad.

I think it was the "in the past" part that set Bug off. I agree with you that UCLA hasn't been great stuff for years and they need to prove it on the field before they get the respect. That said, if you're going to bother to put "in the past", that's probably a sign you should drop the UCLA mention altogether and throw in Cal, Oregon State or Stanford (more recent on the Furd) if you're aiming for upper echelon Pac 10 teams with a recent history of quality teams.

As for Texas-UCLA, Bug's made statements about that before that I don't agree with. I think Texas is going to win that one going away, even in somewhat of a down year for them. They're just way too talented, top to bottom and they're playing at home. That said, I'll bet that it won't be a blowout, but something around a two-TD solid win, and UCLA will come out of it looking a little better than people had given them credit for.

Notre Dame would suffer tremendously if they lost Michigan, MSU and Purdue.
Loss of regional rivalries is not something you want.

As for Big10 teams playing only creampuffs. Are you serious? Sure the bottom half of the league might. Oh wait I believe Minnesota plays USC this season. Illinois plays Mizzou and at Fresno St, (Not many teams in any conference would take that game). Michigan plays UConn, and Notre Dame.

And have you seen Oklahomas OOC schedule? Wow. FSU, Air Force, at Cinci. All 3 games right before the Texas game.

Fair enough on the disagreement, but UCLA has always played a tough OOC schedule. I'm not delusional to think that teams play UCLA because its UCLA but because of where they play. There are three teams who have never played a Div-1AA team and I will let you guess which conference claims all three teams.I don't think Notre Dame has joined a conference yet.

Michigan I care about, but MSU and Purdue are the kind of rivalries old midwesterners care about. Dropping ND would hurt them and their fanbases more than us, in what, the hope that it would be the final straw pushing ND into the league and helping the other 13 teams out? And considering how far schedules are already set up, it would be a dozen years down the road. But I guess if teams are ducking us it would mean we're good again, so I'd take it. I think it's 50% that ND does join the Big 10, but it will be when/because other dominoes are falling, rather than some scheduling hijinks on B10 teams' part (and I feel like if the Big 10 made it clear they were colluding against ND to force them into the conference it could backfire due to the amount of pride (sections of) ND have.)

I don't see how Notre Dame would suffer all that much. Plus, I'm guessing that if the more prestigious Midwestern/Big Ten schools wouldn't play them, schools like Northwestern, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, etc. still would. Plus, they still have rivalries (or semi-rivalries) with USC, Stanford, Pitt, BC, Navy and it could open up more interesting national games against Texas or Florida schools.

I don't think Notre Dame has joined a conference yet.

Michigan I care about, but MSU and Purdue are the kind of rivalries old midwesterners care about. Dropping ND would hurt them and their fanbases more than us, in what, the hope that it would be the final straw pushing ND into the league and helping the other 13 teams out? And considering how far schedules are already set up, it would be a dozen years down the road. But I guess if teams are ducking us it would mean we're good again, so I'd take it. I think it's 50% that ND does join the Big 10, but it will be when/because other dominoes are falling, rather than some scheduling hijinks on B10 teams' part (and I feel like if the Big 10 made it clear they were colluding against ND to force them into the conference it could backfire due to the amount of pride (sections of) ND have.)

Sorry, meant to exclude Notre Dame from that convo. Washington is set to play a 1AA team in the coming schedules

Washington is set to play a 1AA team in the coming schedules
Yeah, and many of us fans aren't happy about it. Oh well...

I do believe Sark needs as many wins as possible to keep up momentum, though Im sure one of the directional Washington schools or Montana would have sufficed as well

Rumor mill is flying around right now that BYU goes independent in football and all other sports play in the WAC...This one has legs and has caught on...

Rumor mill is flying around right now that BYU goes independent in football and all other sports play in the WAC...This one has legs and has caught on...
In what way is this a good idea for BYU?

In what way is this a good idea for BYU?

It's not...not one bit in my eyes...


The gist as I see it is a couple of ways.

1) Force renegotiation of the tv contract for mwc

2) be ready to join a conference immediately

3) Some fans have delusions of grandeur we are as powerful as ND in our audience and I have to laugh at them and remind them we are not...


I hope to hell this doesn't happen...honestly, it would kill the program.

Dola...see what I mean...

Sources: BYU considering move to become a WAC-affiliated football independent - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5472642)

It looks like their move hinges on the willingness of the BCS to give them automatic access to a BCS game (a la Notre Dame) in years that they qualify. I cannot see that happening.

I would give them automatic access, but make it top 4 or something that would make sense for them to be included regardless of where they play.

This is not going to be a good day for me...I just woke up...logged onto twitter and tons of BYU independent stuff..the biggest one so far, was CSU acknowledging BYU was going and there was going to be a presser on Thurs w/ ESPN.

I do see the BCS granting the bid to BYU like Notre Dame but I don't see them doing it with the top 8, maybe top 5...

They could definitely achieve it with a potential 2011 schedule of Notre Dame, Navy, Army, Utah in addition to already scheduled games vs. Texas, Oregon State, Utah State.

I think I am in the twilight zone...

This is not going to be a good day for me...I just woke up...logged onto twitter and tons of BYU independent stuff..the biggest one so far, was CSU acknowledging BYU was going and there was going to be a presser on Thurs w/ ESPN.

I do see the BCS granting the bid to BYU like Notre Dame but I don't see them doing it with the top 8, maybe top 5...

They could definitely achieve it with a potential 2011 schedule of Notre Dame, Navy, Army, Utah in addition to already scheduled games vs. Texas, Oregon State, Utah State.

I think I am in the twilight zone...

I doubt they would be able to make the move in one season, but if they could, I would find it hard to believe that Notre Dame, Navy, and Army don't already have their schedules for '11 finalized.

I think part of the problem BYU would face is getting home games. Their location is not in a good recruiting territory and they are traditionally a very competitive team, so it might be difficult to get H/H series with attractive teams.

Hey, they can always point to the fact that a pretty mediocre FSU team went in there and laid a beat down on them. :p

Hey, they can always point to the fact that a pretty mediocre FSU team went in there and laid a beat down on them. :p

Ugggh................. :banghead:

I would talk smack about how we win at your place this year, but thats not happening with a new qb, new rb and new front 7 on defense.....I just hope we keep it within 14 this year.

I doubt they would be able to make the move in one season, but if they could, I would find it hard to believe that Notre Dame, Navy, and Army don't already have their schedules for '11 finalized.

I think part of the problem BYU would face is getting home games. Their location is not in a good recruiting territory and they are traditionally a very competitive team, so it might be difficult to get H/H series with attractive teams.

Trust me, if they make the move it's because they have everything already lined up...and teams are still willing to play them...and getting the TV deal with ESPN will help solidify that.

As far as recruiting goes, Bronco is doing phenomenal and getting the talent that is needed and the more important factor WANTS to be at BYU, LDS or not.

Ugggh................. :banghead:

I would talk smack about how we win at your place this year, but thats not happening with a new qb, new rb and new front 7 on defense.....I just hope we keep it within 14 this year.

I have no clue what to expect with FSU this year. If the defense is even 50% better, we could easily be a 10 win team. But we have very few proven WRs, the D could still suck while transitioning, and who knows how long it will take to shake the Bowden era off. Might take a team of 2-3 Jimbo recruiting classes. All I know is - this is a game they must win, since they've got Oklahoma the week before (on the road) and Miami and Boston College back-to-back in October. They could be headed for an ugly season if they lose 3 or 4 of those games.

I have no clue what to expect with FSU this year. If the defense is even 50% better, we could easily be a 10 win team. But we have very few proven WRs, the D could still suck while transitioning, and who knows how long it will take to shake the Bowden era off. Might take a team of 2-3 Jimbo recruiting classes. All I know is - this is a game they must win, since they've got Oklahoma the week before (on the road) and Miami and Boston College back-to-back in October. They could be headed for an ugly season if they lose 3 or 4 of those games.

Sounds like our season....

We play FSU, TCU and Utah on the road...I honestly see us 8-4, however miracles can happen and we can go 10-2 at the most...

Aside from Samford - which I believe was scheduled only because it was Bowden's alma mater - we have UF, BYU, and Oklahoma as our OOC teams. Holy crap.

It looks like Boise St. fans want the Broncos to stay in the WAC if BYU leaves the Mountain West.

Feels like a leverage play for BYU. But I don't know what they would want.

The Mountain West is so screwed. I don't know what they're doing wrong, but they're just losing steam by the day. Time to invite Gonzaga for basketball only or something. They need juice and they need it quick, because whatever they're doing now isn't working. Maybe get their network on more channels? Be more aggressive at expansion? I dunno, but this isn't good for them at all. I actually like it for BYU.

The Mountain West is so screwed. I don't know what they're doing wrong, but they're just losing steam by the day. Time to invite Gonzaga for basketball only or something. They need juice and they need it quick, because whatever they're doing now isn't working. Maybe get their network on more channels? Be more aggressive at expansion? I dunno, but this isn't good for them at all. I actually like it for BYU.

Just read an article from Katz...his sources are saying because of the WAC taking our other sports we would agree to play 4 to 6 WAC teams a season, that sure as hell doesn't sound like independence to me and a major step down...

FFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/50131959-88/byu-football-television-conference.html.csp

Wow. Well, sounds like the WAC is giving BYU enough games per year that they should be able to fill out their football schedule, and they appear to have the broadcast equipment in place. I would guess that they should be able to top the $2M per year that they were getting from the MWC.

But they're going to find themselves even more locked out of the BCS than they were before IMO. And without the marquee rivalries that Notre Dame has, I doubt they're going to impress many people with their scheduling.

Sucks for the MWC too - losing Utah, BYU and probably losing Boise back to the WAC. Just think, a couple months ago people were looking at the MWC as the next BCS conference - gaining Boise, possibly gaining programs like Kansas, Kansas State, Mizzou and Iowa State - and now they may be on the verge of implosion. San Diego State may use this as an excuse to return to the WAC and join their State school brethren.

was just headed here to post this. BYU to go independent in football and every other sport to the WAC. Crazy. Mountain West not looking so hot.

FFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/50131959-88/byu-football-television-conference.html.csp

Well, if there's one thing the conference realignment saga of 2010 has taught me, it's that "done deal" means "not at all a done deal".

not bashing BYU, but this tweet by Dennis Dodd was pretty funny.

"Only sure BCS berth for BYU now is to finish in top two. In other words, Louisiana-Monroe has an easier path..."

Word is that Air Force will likely go independent if BYU does.

Damn Render...He is going to make me go across the street to hang myself...

Honestly, I can't stand this...I think it is a dumb move and only alienates the school that much more...

We almost sound like big gigantic fucking cry babies....Utah got to the PAC 10 and we weren't looked at so we are going to sulk, and you can't play with our toys.

It's going to implode a conference that was doing quite well, and it's going to hurt a lot of teams and stir up some serious hate for us....You think it's bad for our guys when they go places because of the religious affiliation of the school, just wait till this is official...These boys will not know where the hell they are or what the hell they have gotten themselves into.

I think $ wise BYU is in a better spot. Getting a BCS bid in a worse spot. $ was the deciding factor in this I believe.

Odd question perhaps but ... does BYU-TV have commercials? I mean, the paid sponsor kind, not the advertising-the-church kind or the move-money-from-one -pocket-to-the-other kind. I always kind of figured it operated as a non-profit, basically commercial free but I could be wrong about that.

I ask because there's talk about a football deal with ESPN (which makes sense) but also references to BYU-TV, which I'm assuming must be for all other sports but I'm failing to see how that's anything other than a rather expensive vanity proposition if there are no sponsors.

I think $ wise BYU is in a better spot. Getting a BCS bid in a worse spot. $ was the deciding factor in this I believe.

Here is the kicker....they have really never had to worry about the money...65K sellout constantly at home. The donors are through the roof as far as giving money to the athletics dept.

I am just trying to figure this out....We will get more money in a T.V. deal, but what Bowl will take us as an independent? The Poinsettia? Oh wow..we get to keep the $ from a mediocre bowl payout...This is honestly BCS suicide to me....

If you guys haven't noticed...Im not happy with this..

Odd question perhaps but ... does BYU-TV have commercials? I mean, the paid sponsor kind, not the advertising-the-church kind or the move-money-from-one -pocket-to-the-other kind. I always kind of figured it operated as a non-profit, basically commercial free but I could be wrong about that.

I ask because there's talk about a football deal with ESPN (which makes sense) but also references to BYU-TV, which I'm assuming must be for all other sports but I'm failing to see how that's anything other than a rather expensive vanity proposition if there are no sponsors.

I think for the sports games there are. If I remember correctly I have seen them...BYU does have a state of the art broadcasting center with their own HD truck. So I think they sell local advertising for games they broadcast on it.

At least Hawaii and BYU can renew the old rivalry once every couple years in Football now. Even though they are going independent, it sounds like they are still gonna be playing 4 or more WAC schools a season.

Odd question perhaps but ... does BYU-TV have commercials? I mean, the paid sponsor kind, not the advertising-the-church kind or the move-money-from-one -pocket-to-the-other kind. I always kind of figured it operated as a non-profit, basically commercial free but I could be wrong about that.

I ask because there's talk about a football deal with ESPN (which makes sense) but also references to BYU-TV, which I'm assuming must be for all other sports but I'm failing to see how that's anything other than a rather expensive vanity proposition if there are no sponsors.

not sure on the commercials, but I read a good point on their proposed tv hope. If BYU schedules say a "name" program (Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State) that game will more than likely get picked up by ESPN anyhow the games that will be on BYU-TV will still be games no one wants to see (BYU vs XYZ University) so it's more about not having to share any revenue with others and all bowl game $.

I hope it works out for them (if it happened), just because more independent programs makes a more interesting college football landscape, IMO.

As for bowls - I don't think their BCS chances would drop too much. On the downside, the path to an automatic bid gets that much tougher, but on the plus side, there's much less chance of an automatic bid coming out of the MWC without them there, and they have a much better chance at an at-large if they have more control over their own schedule. Otherwise, they'll probably end up associated with the WAC's bowl tie-ins, which aren't going to be much worse than the MWC's, especially after BYU left. And they certainly negotiate their own deals with bowls - there might be a season or two where options were less than ideal, but I'm sure that would be remedied.

but what Bowl will take us as an independent? The Poinsettia?

Actually according to this bowl wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_bids_to_college_bowl_games) the Pointy Bowl just wrapped up a new contract that connects it to the Emerald Bowl with teams coming from the MWC and a pool of WAC/Army/Navy similar to the way the Emerald (now Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl) gets Pac10 plus a pool of WAC/Army/ Navy.

Point being, that at least in the short term, even those might not be an option. The only available slot for an indy BYU to go bowling at the moment would seem to be in the event that some conference can't fill all its contractual ties.

Here is the kicker....they have really never had to worry about the money...65K sellout constantly at home. The donors are through the roof as far as giving money to the athletics dept.

I am just trying to figure this out....We will get more money in a T.V. deal, but what Bowl will take us as an independent? The Poinsettia? Oh wow..we get to keep the $ from a mediocre bowl payout...This is honestly BCS suicide to me....

If you guys haven't noticed...Im not happy with this..

BYU saw that Utah would get 10 times in TV revenue in the new Pac-12 and they couldn't stand that is what I'm getting out of all the reports.

I also don't know how playing 4-5 WAC teams a season will help in a quest for a BCS spot either.

I agree they should have stayed in the MWC

At least Hawaii and BYU can renew the old rivalry once every couple years in Football now. Even though they are going independent, it sounds like they are still gonna be playing 4 or more WAC schools a season.

I like the Rivalry...BYU HATES playing in Hawaii, it's one of the most hostile environments they have ever been in besides the Holy War...I don't know if Bronco keeps it going..

BYU saw that Utah would get 10 times in TV revenue in the new Pac-12 and they couldn't stand that is what I'm getting out of all the reports.


As I said, this comes off as a massive temper tantrum to me..

I think for the sports games there are. If I remember correctly I have seen them...BYU does have a state of the art broadcasting center with their own HD truck. So I think they sell local advertising for games they broadcast on it.

Hmm ... interesting. I guess I just mentally assumed they operated the TV as a non-profit ( and the website (http://www.byub.org/) seems to suggest that since they solicit tax deductible donations to underwrite their efforts, including BYU-TV).

If that does turn out to be the case, I'm just not sure I see how the math adds up for them unless the ESPN deal is already done. 100% of $0 TV Revenue vs a cut of the conference TV seems hard to offset by 100% of hypothetical bowl revenue.

Found an article (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=272&sid=11802079) which discusses it, even gets into the possibility to split the signal in order to launch a commercial side of the TV operation & how it could be bigger than the rumored Univ of Texas network in delivery for years, etc. What it fails to consider is whether any satellite or cable provider would allow the sports programming to be shown in their religious tier if it was a for-profit operation.

It's not entirely unworkable but I suspect they're going to run into major headaches with all the new negotiations of carriage + the changes to their non-profit status for TV & could very well end up regretting this at least for a number of years into the future.

Hmm ... interesting. I guess I just mentally assumed they operated the TV as a non-profit ( and the website (http://www.byub.org/) seems to suggest that since they solicit tax deductible donations to underwrite their efforts, including BYU-TV).

If that does turn out to be the case, I'm just not sure I see how the math adds up for them unless the ESPN deal is already done. 100% of $0 TV Revenue vs a cut of the conference TV seems hard to offset by 100% of hypothetical bowl revenue.

Found an article (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=272&sid=11802079) which discusses it, even gets into the possibility to split the signal in order to launch a commercial side of the TV operation & how it could be bigger than the rumored Univ of Texas network in delivery for years, etc. What it fails to consider is whether any satellite or cable provider would allow the sports programming to be shown in their religious tier if it was a for-profit operation.

It's not entirely unworkable but I suspect they're going to run into major headaches with all the new negotiations of carriage + the changes to their non-profit status for TV & could very well end up regretting this at least for a number of years into the future.

Have any more lemon you want to squeeze into my gaping wound? :D

Have any more lemon you want to squeeze into my gaping wound? :D

Sorry 'bout that Chief ;)

For most of the rest of us it's mostly hypothetical discussion fodder, not so easy for you I'm sure.

Sorry 'bout that Chief ;)

For most of the rest of us it's mostly hypothetical discussion fodder, not so easy for you I'm sure.

I'm joking...Honestly I am intrigued on BYU's reasoning behind this. Greg Wrubell who is KSL's BYU sports reporter, just basically received a no comment response from the school..

On top of that, The MWC just tweeted they invited FSU and Nevada officially...

I'm joking...Honestly I am intrigued on BYU's reasoning behind this. Greg Wrubell who is KSL's BYU sports reporter, just basically received a no comment response from the school..

On top of that, The MWC just tweeted they invited FSU and Nevada officially...

who's going to pony up that $5 mill per for them to leave though?

who's going to pony up that $5 mill per for them to leave though?

They won't take it if BYU is gone...why? TCU and BSU? They get the rest of the same type of teams in their conference right now..not worth the 5..

On top of that, The MWC just tweeted they invited FSU and Nevada officially...

I can see Nevada considering it but I think Florida State is overreaching.

:D

I can see Nevada considering it but I think Florida State is overreaching.

:D

Sorry, I wasn't thinking when I typed it...

Right now here are the new rumors coming out..

1) Fresno State and Nevada have supposedly accepted their invites

2) BYU is supposedly getting $4 million for 4 games a year from ESPN plus keeping redistribution rights.

I see this right now as the WAC vs MWC going toe to toe and see who comes out on top...IF Fresno and Nevada jump, the WAC affiliation for BYU just went to hell in a handbasket..

I like the money that they are supposedly going to get, but does BYU stay with the MWC if Fresno and Nevada come on board...It will force I think, a renegotiation of their current TV contract.


Oh, and the architect for the WAC buyout clause....BYU..

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5474774

A Reno newspaper apparently said that Nevada did not sign the $5M buyout clause.

Could be interesting -- BYU may have (purposely or inadvertantly?) just orchestrated the destruction of the WAC.

A Reno newspaper apparently said that Nevada did not sign the $5M buyout clause.

Could be interesting -- BYU may have (purposely or inadvertantly?) just orchestrated the destruction of the WAC.

This is turned into a wild 2 days...I guess I now know what the BigXII and PAC-Whatever fans felt like this summer...

Funny thing is...another rumor...SDSU and UNLV are ready to go to the WAC if BYU leaves..

Let's not kid ourselves here. All of these schools are positioning themselves for the big conference shakeup that will occur next summer and likely drag over to the summer after that. They're willing to sacrifice a year or two for the betterment of their own school when they get a mega-conference invite. By going independent, they open up their options quite a bit. It also forces the hands of the other schools, making sure that major realignment occurs sooner rather than later.

Fresno Bee and RGJ.com are reporting that both Fresno and Nevada are accepting the MWC invites...

Question is does this keep BYU with the MWC now..

Press Conferences going on right now for UNR and Fresno...

UNR stated negotiations with WAC begin tomorrow on buyout....UNLV helped get them in.

We have MWC press conference at 930 MST I think with Thompson...

Good riddance to BYU (for now). Even the WAC for their other sports is too good for them.

Fuck the WAC is done. Hawaii needs to find a fucking conference that will look past the travel problems. We come with a decent football team, average basketball, excellent top 10 Mens and womens Volleyball, and decent baseball, so its not like we are a bad school at any of these. The travel kills us, and others.

Hawaii needs to find a fucking conference that will look past the travel problems.

Is there really any conference that can do that in this economy?

Let's not kid ourselves here. All of these schools are positioning themselves for the big conference shakeup that will occur next summer and likely drag over to the summer after that. They're willing to sacrifice a year or two for the betterment of their own school when they get a mega-conference invite. By going independent, they open up their options quite a bit. It also forces the hands of the other schools, making sure that major realignment occurs sooner rather than later.

I just don't see how these schools will be in a better position for a major shakeup. If anything, wouldn't BYU be hurt by such a shakeup? What if ND finally jumps to the Big 10? I don't see the PAC-10 inviting them and the MVC would likely get the leftover pieces if the Big 12 fails. Where would BYU turn to? They aren't ND and they need to realize that.

Fresno Bee and RGJ.com are reporting that both Fresno and Nevada are accepting the MWC invites...

Question is does this keep BYU with the MWC now..

I don't think so only for the simple reason that those schools don't help the MWC in gaining AQ status and that is what BYU is looking for.

I don't know that being indie makes it any easier though. BYU has a nationwide network that is HD capable and a solid fanbase around the country, but to be considered for AQ status they need to have the same cache as Notre Dame and they just don't.

To get there they would need to play a Notre Dame type schedule and while they can handle mid tier BCS programs with relative ease and knock off a powerhouse here and there, they can not compete at a high enough level week to week to be more than a 8-9 win a year program at best playing a Notre Dame caliber schedule. Not enough depth and a recruiting model that makes it hard to gain that depth and consistently land players like the ones they got in the 2010 class, which is what they would need to do every year.

To me this all leads back to that stupid fucking idea for the MWC to get their own network. Low revenue payout, poor national exposure and next to no name recognition east of Texas. If the MWC had just made right with ESPN, coupled the with success of Utah, BYU and TCU on a ntional level things would be pretty good right now. They could have worked a better TV deal, kept Utah and still added Boise State which would have made AQ status a lock.

I just don't know at first glance I am not at all crazy about these developments.

I'm not thrilled about adding either Nevada or Fresno State from a MWC prestige improvement perspective in either football or basketball, although I do like the idea of having Nevada/UNLV rivalry being a conference one.

I think BYU will now stay, realizing that if they do the MWC gets AQ status and it's all good. Rather than taking the risk of being left in the cold and screwing the entire athletic department on a long-term gamble. The MWC made the right move, even if Nevada and Fresno State aren't exactly top-tier programs, it's a better move than standing pat with only 8 teams if BYU left. I hope they go after UTEP and Houston as the rumor is they might...

Alright...

I think BYU just made a Texas style move here...Even though the MWC commissioner said no member will receive concessions in order to stay, I think he is up in the night.

I think a renegotiated TV deal becomes part of the deal, more money for everyone. and BYU stays.

I think UTEP or Houston get the invite and we now have a conference championship game. All this puts us that much closer to AQ status.

I like Houston in the MWC alot, but not Utep. (sorry Jeebs) With June Jones at the helm I think SMU is a much better choice long term as he will build a program down there.

I like Houston in the MWC alot, but not Utep. (sorry Jeebs) With June Jones at the helm I think SMU is a much better choice long term as he will build a program down there.

And Houston and Dallas are much bigger markets as well.

And Houston and Dallas are much bigger markets as well.

We already have the Dallas market with TCU...I think we go after the Houston market next..

Something interesting from the story on ESPN:

Benson said the WAC will look at schools in Division I-A and I-AA conferences. Among the schools that have been reported as possibilities are Montana, UC-Davis and Cal-Poly.

Is that really feasible?

I read (can't remember where) that the BCS may actually push for BYU independence and grant them a Notre Dame-like berth because the current BCS conferences can justify leaving the MWC out with both Utah and BYU gone. If the MWC is granted a spot, that forces the BCS to share an additional $18M each year. If BYU is an indy, odds are that they won't make more than one or two (if any) BCS games and the payouts will remain "in-house."

I like how the WAC is calling Fresno State and Nevada selfish.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/50138551-88/benson-wac-schools-byu.html.csp

An article on BYU's problems in getting teams to play them:

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/colleges/articles/2010/08/18/20100818byu-football-independent.html

So I know the Quorum of the 12 had or is having their meetings today for BYU and what to do ...I honestly do not think we will hear anything from BYU until Monday..

If BYU went independent and had no concessions, all they'd have to do is finish Top 14 and get a BCS bid. They did that last year, but being in the MWC prevented that from happening.

If BYU went independent and had no concessions, all they'd have to do is finish Top 14 and get a BCS bid. They did that last year, but being in the MWC prevented that from happening.

They'd only be considered for a bid. The 'Top 14' is in place in the event there are fewer than 10 automatic qualifiers.

At-large eligibility

If there are fewer than 10 automatic qualifiers, then the bowls will select at-large participants to fill the remaining berths. An at-large team is any Football Bowl Subdivision team that is bowl-eligible and meets the following requirements:

A. Has won at least nine regular-season games, and
B. Is among the top 14 teams in the final BCS Standings.

No more than two teams from a conference may be selected, regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings.

If fewer than 10 teams are eligible for selection, then the Bowls can select as an at-large team any Football Bowl Subdivision team that is bowl-eligible, has won at least nine regular-season games and is among the top 18 teams in the final BCS Standings subject to the two-team limit noted above and also subject to the following: (1) if any conference has two or more teams in the top 14, then two of those teams must be selected and (2) from the teams ranked 15-18, a bowl can select only a team from a conference that has fewer than two teams in the top 14.

If expansion of the pool to 18 teams does not result in 10 teams eligible for selection, then the pool shall be expanded by blocks of 4 teams until 10 eligible teams are available subject to the two-team limit noted above and also subject to the following: (1) if any conference has two or more teams in the top 14, then two of those teams must be selected and (2) from the teams ranked 15 or lower, a bowl can select only a team from a conference that has fewer than two teams in the top 14.

Relative to the two preceding paragraphs, all teams ranked in the top 14, other than those from conferences which have already had two teams selected, must be included in the bowl selections.

Note: in order to participate in a BCS Bowl game, a team (i) must be eligible for post-season play under the rules of the NCAA and, if it not an independent, under the rules of its conference and (ii) must not have imposed sanctions upon itself prohibiting participation in a post-season game for infractions of the rules of the NCAA or the rules of its conference.

If BYU went independent and had no concessions, all they'd have to do is finish Top 14 and get a BCS bid. They did that last year, but being in the MWC prevented that from happening.

Can they get enough quality opponents, while beating them, to do that?

Maybe I'm just tired, but this is one of those quotes that I had a tough time not reading over & over
"Only if the WAC believes that it would be in the WAC's best interest that there would be an early out, would there be an early out," Benson said.

Sounds kind of like a slightly stoned Rocky Maivia talking or something.

Can they get enough quality opponents, while beating them, to do that?

Teams don't like to go to Provo, so they would probably be forced into 2 for 1 concessions in some cases and if they were scheduling 3-4 top line BCS teams a year, which I think would be the minimum needed to gain a top 14 birth. That being the case they would need to go 4-0 against those teams or 3-1 with no other losses and I don't see that happening.

Something interesting from the story on ESPN:

Benson said the WAC will look at schools in Division I-A and I-AA conferences. Among the schools that have been reported as possibilities are Montana, UC-Davis and Cal-Poly.

Is that really feasible?

It's not much of a choice for the WAC at this point. The MWC basically ruined a BYU/WAC alliance by undermining them for the best remaining teams in the WAC. There really isn't much else out there in the main geographic footprint of the league other than high-quality FBS schools like Montana.

It's also not unprecedented as UConn was a I-AA football school in the process of transitioning to I-A, but moved up their full transition a year after the ACC raid and the Big East needed them to get back to eight again. Not sure the WAC has that kind of time, though. They're effectively a non-entity in FBS now since they need eight members for football (only six needed to keep an auto-bid to the NCAA tourney in basketball, though) and generally it's a years-long process for I-AA teams to transition to I-A.

Of course, if the 16-team mega-conferences are on the horizon, then this whole exercise is rearranging deck chairs for most of the league members in both leagues.

The one thing that shocks me the most and move Utah State up in my book...they kept their word after getting the invite to the MWC while Fresno and UNR didn't....to me that was major.

Major what - stupidity? Now they can accept pats on the back from the other WAC members as they sink into bolivian.

Major what - stupidity? Now they can accept pats on the back from the other WAC members as they sink into bolivian.

I don't know...Integrity and keeping their word...they all agreed to not jump ship to keep everything in place after BSU bolted. But Fresno and Nevada took off not keeping their word.

I know, but look what that got them.

It's not much of a choice for the WAC at this point. The MWC basically ruined a BYU/WAC alliance by undermining them for the best remaining teams in the WAC. There really isn't much else out there in the main geographic footprint of the league other than high-quality FBS schools like Montana.

It's also not unprecedented as UConn was a I-AA football school in the process of transitioning to I-A, but moved up their full transition a year after the ACC raid and the Big East needed them to get back to eight again. Not sure the WAC has that kind of time, though. They're effectively a non-entity in FBS now since they need eight members for football (only six needed to keep an auto-bid to the NCAA tourney in basketball, though) and generally it's a years-long process for I-AA teams to transition to I-A.

Of course, if the 16-team mega-conferences are on the horizon, then this whole exercise is rearranging deck chairs for most of the league members in both leagues.

Yeah, but in addition to Montana, there are some good options out there in their footprint from the next rung (Portland State, for example)

Wow...things are a little interesting in the CFB climate right now...

The PAC-Whatever Expansion still not official?

Dickey: Latest additions to Pac-10 Conference not all positive | San Francisco Examiner (http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/Dickey-Latest-additions-to-Pac-10-Conference-not-all-positive-101138474.html)

Young was an incredible Chancellor for UCLA, but the combination of Young and former UCLA AD, Peter Dalis, were content on seeing that softball and woman's volleyball were on par with college football and basketball.

I think it almost sounds like he is trying to plant a Pac 10 seed for BYU and Air Force.

Well, UCLA's softball team has won about 10 more championships than the football team in the past 30 years.

Not sure the WAC has that kind of time, though.

They do have apparently until 2013 until they get down to 6 teams, so that's some time to either bring people in, or run in seperate directions in total panic.

Good riddance to BYU (for now). Even the WAC for their other sports is too good for them.

Amen.

Well, UCLA's softball team has won about 10 more championships than the football team in the past 30 years.

Considering they are relatively flush with money generated by the football program, the softball team should be winning championships.

Is that unique? I thought all lower-tier programs were funded that way. FSU's football program funded the construction of the building surrounding the stadium, which houses a ton of classrooms. The money generated by big school football programs is used for everything.

Wow...things are a little interesting in the CFB climate right now...

The PAC-Whatever Expansion still not official?

Dickey: Latest additions to Pac-10 Conference not all positive | San Francisco Examiner (http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/Dickey-Latest-additions-to-Pac-10-Conference-not-all-positive-101138474.html)
Eh, this is the same type of mentality that had the Pac-10 stuck in a perpetual rut, watching as the rest of the college football world passed them by.

Sure, there are scheduling issues with adding Colorado and Utah, much more so than if Scott had succeeded in bringing Texas etc. over to form a Pac-16. Yeah, maybe Utah isn't quite at the same level as many of the other Pac-10 schools academically. And yeah, maybe Colorado and Utah don't add more than they take away financially. But the Pac-10 is stuck geographically, and without expanding their footprint, they are going to continue to lose ground to the other BCS conferences.

Okay, now I have read the link re: former Chancellor Young's opposition.

This is the kind of dinosaur thinking that mucked everything up for the Pac 10 in the first place. This is the kind of person that got us stick with Tom "Do Nothing" Hansen for 20-plus years, and the aforementioned Dalis as AD at UCLA. Good riddance to Young, IMO.

I like how the columnist makes it out like it's not going to happen now because Young is emailing currents chancellors and presidents, calling it "strong opposition". The columnist even says in the article he agrees with Young's position. This is just a hack columnist who found a dissenting loon and gave him a forum.

I am confident--mostly because of the projected financial windfalls--that Young's pleas will be ignored (and glad for it).

Is that unique? I thought all lower-tier programs were funded that way. FSU's football program funded the construction of the building surrounding the stadium, which houses a ton of classrooms. The money generated by big school football programs is used for everything.

Unique? No. But I was pointing out that your argument about softball generating more championships is a little silly when you consider they are only able to do it because of the football program. Your point was essentially irrelevant.

Is that unique? I thought all lower-tier programs were funded that way. FSU's football program funded the construction of the building surrounding the stadium, which houses a ton of classrooms. The money generated by big school football programs is used for everything.
Maybe what he means is that more of UCLA's football money is diverted to the rest of the athletic department than is usual at other schools.

I know that there was a lot of consternation at Washington in the mid '90's when our AD decided to spend our war chest and nearly all of her fundraising efforts on non-revenue sports rather than addressing the deteriorating condition of Husky Stadium. And, surprise surprise, the softball team has a beautiful stadium with a priceless view of Lake Washington and Mount Rainier, while the baseball and soccer teams play in half-assed "stadiums" that consist of temporary metal bleachers.

Oh, and I know you were offering up the softball thing somewhat tongue in cheek, of course, so sorry if my response comes off more serious. Not really intending to respond with any more conviction than is needed.

I think it almost sounds like he is trying to plant a Pac 10 seed for BYU and Air Force.

What I thought as well.

It's almost all but assured that Michigan and Ohio State will be in separate divisions when the Big 10 announces alignments in the next few weeks. The game will not be played at the end of the year anymore to accommodate that. This has all but been confirmed by Michigan AD's David Brandon.

On the UM Rivals site they are reporting Michigan is trying to make sure Penn State is in their division for recruiting purposes, which would put OSU and Nebraska together on the other side.

Seems like Penn State would go more naturally with Ohio State. But I guess they've said geography isn't a primary consideration for the alignments.

It's almost all but assured that Michigan and Ohio State will be in separate divisions when the Big 10 announces alignments in the next few weeks. The game will not be played at the end of the year anymore to accommodate that. This has all but been confirmed by Michigan AD's David Brandon.
Wow, really? That sucks. I'm assuming that Michigan and Ohio State will be assured of still playing every year, right? And if that's the case, why not allow for that game to still be at the end of the year? Because they're afraid that it might get repeated the next week in the Big Ten championship game?

Oh, and I know you were offering up the softball thing somewhat tongue in cheek, of course, so sorry if my response comes off more serious. Not really intending to respond with any more conviction than is needed.

Yeah, I was just joking. My point was that by one measure, softball is more than on equal footing with football.

Wow, really? That sucks. I'm assuming that Michigan and Ohio State will be assured of still playing every year, right? And if that's the case, why not allow for that game to still be at the end of the year? Because they're afraid that it might get repeated the next week in the Big Ten championship game?

Yeah Michigan/Ohio State will happen every year still. And that is the issue on why the game will move, so there isn't a repeat. I am indifferent to it but as long as they aren't stupid and move it to week 1 like FSU/Miami did, I don't hate it.

I think it is safe to say that UM, OSU, Nebraska and PSU will be split up. Then Iowa and Wisconsin will be split up.

I think if UM gets their way it'll be Michigan, PSU, Iowa and OSU, Nebraska and Wisconsin. Then the crossover games every year would be UM - OSU, PSU - Nebraska (something I have heard both schools are pushing for) and Wisconsin - Iowa.

Well, UCLA's softball team has won about 10 more championships than the football team in the past 30 years.

Dalis ran the UCLA football program like Sterling runs the Clippers. If it's making money, who cares about the product on the field. Hence the softball team performing so well and the football team being...average

Here are the quotes from UM's AD about the division alignments:

Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon, who has spent personal time with commissioner Jim Delany recently, has been on many conference calls and in-person meetings about the divisional breakdown, was asked today if he would put Michigan and Ohio State in the same division.

"No," he told WTKA-AM (1050) hosts Ira Weintraub and Sam Webb. "Because we're in a situation where one of the best things that could happen in a given season, in my opinion, is the opportunity to play Ohio State twice. Once in the regular season and once for the championship of the Big Ten."

So if that occurs -- and the divisions will likely be announced by the Big Ten in the next few weeks -- would the Wolverines and Buckeyes at least play the season finale, as recent history has dictated?

"I think there's a distinct possibility that game will be a later game in the season but not necessarily the last game of the season," Brandon said. "That's simply because I don't think the coaches or the players or the fans or the networks or anyone would appreciate that matchup twice within a seven-day period

Read more: AD Dave Brandon wouldn't put U-M, Ohio State in same division, final game | freep.com | Detroit Free Press AD Dave Brandon wouldn't put U-M, Ohio State in same division, final game | freep.com | Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20100820/SPORTS06/100820027/1318/AD-Dave-Brandon-wouldnt-put-U-M-Ohio-State-in-same-division-final-game#ixzz0xAgk97Uh)