Texas and the Pac 10
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 6:35 AM PST
104 comments
When any discussion of conference expansion comes up the true prize that is sitting out there is the University of Texas which has everything going for it academically, athletically, geographically, and most importantly the TV sets required to make a major impact financially for any conference they join.
The problem with Texas is you are inviting the 1000 lb Gorilla to the party. Just ask the Northern members of the Big 12 how they feel about Texas and the influence it has on the overall conference. They all like the money they are bringing in but the big kid on the block tends to make all the rules at the expense of others.
Another problem is that you just can't have Texas...you have to take Texas A&M too in a package deal. The Texas legislature won't allow it to be done in any other fashion even though Texas and not Texas A&M is currently in discussions with the Big Ten. That being said both are highly rated academic institutions that would fit in well with either the culture of the Big Ten or equally snobby Pac 10.
The Pac 10 first courted Texas back in the 1990's. Texas was drawn to the academic excellence of the conference and research ties that went way beyond athletics. UT would love to join a conference like the Big Ten or Pac Ten because of the doors it would open and expand in the fields of research.
Things didn't work out in the 1990's because there was no way the Texas State Legislature was going to let Texas abandon Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor. That could still be another roadblock in this next round of expansion talks. The thinking though is if they can take A&M with them they could leave Bayor and Texas Tech behind because the Big Ten isn't going to want them. That could once again cause problems in the Texas Legislature. Who can forget then Governor Ann Richards statement "Not without my Baylor!"
The Big 12 is a sports conference that was born out of a marriage of convenience. The academic ties that bind the Pac 10 and Big 10 don't exist in the Big 12. That is why stronger academic schools such as Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas are keeping their eyes open for a better eventual fit.
The point to be made in all of this is if Texas moves it will be accompanied by Texas A&M and that means if the Big Ten takes them in they will grow into at least a 14 team conference which means that Missouri would probably join them. If the Big Ten grows to 14 it would probably make sense for them to head East and pick up Pitt and most importantly Rutgers which would give them the NY TV Market. Like I said earlier there isn't room in the Big Ten for a Baylor or a Texas Tech....However their could be room in an expanded Pac 10.
I don't think Rutgers will ever be an important player in the New York sports scene. That isn't why it is important to add them either. What it does is add the Big Ten Network to all those TV sets in the tri state area. That is where the money is in that move. If the Big Ten adds all those TV sets in Texas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York we are talking about a market share that will eclipse what the SEC has already built in the Southeast.
So what exactly does the Pac 10 do if that happens?
First of all the Pac 10 is being proactive in their examination of Colorado and Utah as future members. Both are the best and only fits West of the Rocky Mountains for conference expansion. While the Pac 10 is sure to put out feelers to Texas the Longhorns are most likely better off in a conference that is in the Central Time Zone unless the Pac 10 expands to 16 teams.
Nick Daschel of Buster Sports wrote yesterday about a 16 team conference scenario that would add Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech, Colorado, and Utah. Like I said in a column earlier this week 16 teams makes more sense for the Pac 10 than twelve especially when the Big Ten is leaning that way. Why not be proactive and completely tie up all the proximate markets?
(For the record I think Nick's idea makes a little more sense than mine. Being able to bring in all four Texas schools which the Big Ten likely won't do may be the trump card that puts it all together as far as bringing in Texas is concerned.)
Nick's version of Pac 10 Expansion
Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Utah, Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech
The Texas market is attractive but the Pac 10 could also cast an eye toward the less attractive Plains States if the Big Ten beats to them to the punch with the Longhorns. That will be the topic of the next article on the coming changes for college athletics driven by expansion and consolidation.
0 recs |
104 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I’ve been talking to many Colorado fans, and they think Texas would just swallow up the Pac-10, and the Pac would then be run by Texas. I brought up the issue that I thought USC would be a counter balance to Texas, but CU fans are obviouslly wary of Texas.
If Texas was able to expand its recruiting base to California
They’d be darn near unstoppable. But only if they had the resources to expand to SoCal and maintain their hold on Texas. It’d be interesting to see if they’d attempt to expand that base or if they would just stay in Texas and clean up there.
Couldn't the same be said for USC?
Having a game every season in the state of texas would go much further than texas having 1 game every 3 or 4 years in LA
USC already recruits on a stage far more national than Texas does.
Texas rarely leaves the state for players.
85/25
You can only have 85 scholarships at ne time and 25 in a recruiting class so the fears that Texas would pluck way too much talent over California isn’t very realistic. You have to realize that the State of Texas supplies everything they need plus supplies a good portion of the rest of the country with talent.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Baylor
I think we can leave Baylor behind, they don’t really bring us a certain Demo. Baylor got in because of Heavy political pressure (I think they had the speaker of the house and the governor who were Baylor alums). If you bring more than just A&M and UT, go grab Texas Tech, or better yet Oklahoma.
Baylor has a great medical school
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are not great academic fits. Baylor on the other hand even though it is private brings uite a bit to the table academically.
The thinking though is you can’t get Texas without A&M period…but you were to offer all four which the big Ten won’t do it may be enticing enough to seal the deal.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 7:38 AM PST up reply actions
That is a interesting point..
that I haven’t thought about. Offer Tech and baylor because it is something that the Big 10 wouldn’t do? Couldn’t they just get the 4 texas schools and missouri? You would think maybe they would take Baylor so they could take Texas. Maybe we can take the 3 (minus Baylor), and add Nebraska.
They could but I think they would rather go East and grab those TV sets in NY/NJ/PA/CN.
Think of it this way….the Big Ten is a regional cable network….they want to extend market share. Adding a Rutgers doesn’t make the conference more competitive and it won’t fire up New Yorker’s about college football. What it will do is add around 20 million subscribers to their cable network…that is where the money is and it is huge…they can’t ignore it.
So do you add Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech, and Missouri instead which cuts you off from an even more lucrative market?
In a perfect world they take Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Rutgers, and Pitt.
Nobody really wants Tech and Baylor…but nobody in Texas wants them knocked out of the BCS either.
It gets complicated.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 7:49 AM PST up reply actions
If you could get by without having to include Tech and Baylor, what would be the 2 other schools that you would at least make that phone call?
Maybe Kansas and Nebraska?
One thing to mention is the last time the Pac 10 talked about expanding one of the schools they were very interested in was Missouri.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah John Wilner talked about realistic possibilities, and mentioned Missouri. And if we are truly going for a eastern 8 mini conference, Missouri would fit.
Missouri is a perfect fit for the Big Ten and I don’t see a scenario where they aren’t invited to the party unless the Big Ten took all four Texas schools. If that happens Missouri could be left out if they went after Rutgers.
The Big Ten really has their eyes on those Mid-Atlantic television sets which makes a lot of sense since it is an open market despite the presence of the Big East.
If Missouri is interested the Pac 10 would most certainly be interested. Missouri is a market about the size of Denver and Salt Lake combined.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
Oh?
Missouri fits in with the Big 10 except for the academics, prestige, sports program quality, TV market….but we’re only talking of trivialities!
Mizzou’s academics rep is just fine and good enough for the Big-10. Their TV markets would fit in great by adding the #21 TV market in St. Louis and the #31 TV market in Kansas City. Their football program would slot in just fine in the middle of that conference, and their basketball program would be in the upper tier of that conference.
So, yeah – basically you’re way off base with this post.
Trivialities…I sense some sarcasm here.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
Baylor is a Baptist University, though isn't it?
How does that fit with the “culture” thing that’s part of the reason for excluding BYU?
I think the 16 team format is the way to go. Utah, Colorado, Texas, aTm, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. It keeps travelling pairs, and since aTm doesn’t fit the “typical” profile we’re looking for, we may as take a couple other “atypical” schools to round things out and keep a strong rivalry (Red River shootout on the PacTen network… c’mon, now!)
by TiltingRight on Feb 18, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
I think the Pac 10 would prefer not to add a private school of any type. However Baylor isn’t your average private school and isn’t a dogmatic type institution such as BYU.
Is anyone really interested in adding Baylor…no.
Would they add Baylor to get Texas…maybe.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
The counterbalance of two eight team divisions
With this plan you have the counter-balance of two eight team divisions with USC and Texas serving as the powerhouse anchors for both. Texas was allowed to dominate the Big 12 because the other members really had no other choice…they dominated the TV sets…not so in the Pac 10 because California is the bigger market.
Good points
You will have 2 mini conferences, a old Pac-8, and a hybrid of WAC/Big 8/SWC.
If you swapped out a Tech/Baylor for a Oklahoma/Nebraska or a Nebraska/Kansas or what not..would it make the east too lopsided?
I could prefer a Nebraska/Kansas I suppose. I just don’t think Oklahoma will fly…they are a better fit for the SEC.
Tomorrow we are going to be talking about the Plains States.
What i am trying to do is cover all the different scenarios this week.
Honestly the only thing on the actual table right now is Utah and Colorado but that could change in a hurry depending on what the Big Ten does.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 7:42 AM PST up reply actions
Review
In your review of the numbers/dollars etc, is adding Colorado/Utah going to add a positive cost/benefit? Will they bring enough television sets to offset the extra cost of dividing up the gold pot.
Adding Colorado and Utah will increase the pie enough to make it work but it won’t result in the gold mine that the Texas schools bring to the table.
You add the Texas schools and you have the potential clout of the SEC…and that is what everyone is looking for.
Just adding Colorado and Utah allows you to stay competitive and not risk being eaten up or being at the bottom of the revenue totem pole.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 7:55 AM PST up reply actions
No Way On this Alignment
Nick’s version of Pac 10 Expansion
Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Utah, Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech
The old PAC8 against the newcomers…don’t like it
The Tunnel is Hallowed and Sacred Ground
by bigdawgdaddy999 on Feb 18, 2010 7:56 AM PST reply actions
STAY IN PLACE
This gets more and more ridiculous with each passing day.
Keep the PAC-10 BIG-10 and the ROSE BOWL. Get out of the BCS and go back to being academic institutions. Dump USC and bring in Boise State, exciting football.
Reminds me when the Pacific Coast Conference broke up over greed and LA and SF became the Brooklyn Dodgers and the NY Giants. The PCC was an even match iwth the DiMaggios, Lefty O’Doul and a famous Surgeon pitcher for the Seattle Rainiers. Pure greed and selling out.
Not a word on player benefits!!!
They just get the paralyzing injuries and long term arthritic conditions that comes with such a violent sport. Hypocrisy just so the football factories can reap more glory and trophies and alumnus donations.
Better to stay in place or go backwards.
SARCASM, JOKE
No way, been a fan since Heinrich, McElhenny. Attended games for 44 years. Never heard a word about SUPER MEGA conferences, didn’t care. Many years three wins was terrific. PS. was a graduate of UW, lifetime alumnus.
Things changed when the TYEE CLUB arrived and bought in over 50 year loyal benefactors who were squeezed into the end zone (covered side then). 44 years and never got beyond the 5 yard line after TYEE. Not much loyalty there. Funny they (TYEE) sat across the aisle six yard line.
Then TV and night games was the end of the line for me. Watched it all happen and it seems to never end.
Yes BOISE STATE for football and GONZAGA for basketball as a package
. That would be exciting as both would be conference champions!!!!!! Maybe I have hust been around too long and seen it all and don’t like what I am seeing. I could go along if we dropped the COLLEGE sham and label it SEMI PRO and pay the players who make it possible.
TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!!
I feel like adding a "get off my lawn" to this
But no, BSU and GU would not be good to add to the conference in any way shape or form. Like it or not, all athletics are driven by money. We’ve come too far to try to turn any of that back. When athletic departments are pulling in the kind of revenue they are, you just can’t change that, so we as a conference need to adapt.
If the conference doesn’t adapt and expand, we’re going to be in a lot of trouble in the very near future.
by cougfan on Feb 18, 2010 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I respect your opinion
I prefer most things the way they were in the old day too. The reality though is change is coming so we are just kicking around what those changes might be.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
Come on...
The Big 10 is never going back. They were the ones that wanted out of the Rose Bowl Exclusive contract with the P-10. They are the ones with the a conference network,a nd they are the ones adding more teams.
We need a dancing partner to dance..but that is not going to happen.
I actually think this might be the only way the NW schools go for it.
The two recruiting hotbeds in this mix would be CA and TX, and everyone has access to one or the other every year. Otherwise, the NW schools get excluded from part of or all of CA compared to now, which will hurt our recruiting.
by TiltingRight on Feb 18, 2010 9:24 AM PST up reply actions
Keeping the old Pac 8 together is probably the best solution for all concerned. That is why I think and expansion to 16 is much better than 12. Also as I have written I think the Big Ten is headed that direction anyway which will drive the other conferences to do the same thing.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
Keeping the old Pac 8 together is probably the best solution for all concerned. That is why I think and expansion to 16 is much better than 12.
Totally agree – if the conference is going to expand (and it probably has to if it wants to remain an elite conference), they should go to 16 for all the reasons you stated. Don’t take a tentative step forward – be bold and do it right.
The question is whether we can be a stronger lure to Texas than the Big-12 – part of all these discussions has to be creating a Pac-10 TV network in addition to the new TV deals in order to compete with the revenue that the Big-10 is generating.
I'm not sure it's being a stronger lure than the Big 12
I think it’s more being a stronger lure than the Big-10. We can’t do it based on hypothetical TV networks and such, it’s gotta be a “we’ll take all your Texas schools” pitch. The Big 10 can point to their revenue and have solid evidence of the money they can bring. The Pac-10….not so much (Thanks, Tom Hansen). So, we can talk about what we’re going to do, but right now the Big 10 has the solid evidence to back up what they have done and will do.
To me it seems like we need a different approach and some serious flirtation.
I think there are many reasons why they might want to join the Pac-10, but money is the biggest factor – if we can’t show them comparable revenue projections to what the Big-10 can offer, all that other stuff won’t be enough.
It will if it's better than the Big-12
and the Big-10 doesn’t take aTm or any other Texas schools and the Pac-10 does.
I think any deal with Texas is going to have to include more than Texas
Namely at least A&M. That seemed to be the sticking point trying to snag Texas previously
Why not A&M?
Not an Aggie fan, but they should also be a target of anyone wanting to expand…they have a good academic reputation, lots of alumni, a pretty rounded sports program, a large enrollment….maybe not quite up to Texas standards but not that far behind them.
In this day and age, a major question would be what they add in terms of TV revenue. I honestly don’t know what kind of pull they have in the major population centers in Texas, but I’d assume it’s not nearly as big as what Texas pulls.
For whatever reason a&m was the sticking point last time
I don’t know why but it seems that’s why we didn’t take Texas when the SWC folded
by cougfan on Feb 18, 2010 2:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Well, the last time around the Pac-10 was only looking at adding two, and they wanted Texas and Colorado. I can understand why they may have felt Colorado was a better all-around fit than A&M.
If they want to go to 16, I don’t see why A&M should be a major sticking point…
I dont think it would be now
If they want to go that big it isn’t a problem at all
by cougfan on Feb 18, 2010 2:59 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
In hindsight we shouldve probably taken that deal
But hindsight is 20/20
by cougfan on Feb 18, 2010 3:02 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It definitely comes down to money at the end of the day
They want to go where they can maximize their revenue
Keeps rivals together
Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, , UCLA, USC,Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Stanford, Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, California
The Tunnel is Hallowed and Sacred Ground
by bigdawgdaddy999 on Feb 18, 2010 9:46 AM PST reply actions
Except you're inexplicably separating Tech from the other Texas schools
And Stanford and Cal from the other Pac-8 schools.
Your proposal does a much worse job of keeping rivalries intact.
Tech not a rival!
Texas Tech is not a strong rival of any of the other Big 12 schools that I am aware of…I believe they think they are, but the other schools don’t get rabid ovr TT.
If we could take Texas and Texas A&M without Baylor and Texas Tech all the better.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
Im OK with all four
Baylors getting there athletically and Tech isn’t bad at all in the revenue sports. If were going at 16, academics almost takes a backseat at that point it seems
by cougfan on Feb 18, 2010 4:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Tech/A&M is a rivalry
But even if it weren’t, that doesn’t mean it would make sense to split Tech from the Texas schools. They’d have to travel far more than any other team, which wouldn’t fly.
Why would you put Tech and Utah in one division
in place of Cal and Stanford?
I like Nick’s idea, it keeps things separate and traditional, but still allows for some new blood.
That doesn't work
It is best to align the divisions geographically keeping all rivarlies intact. Throwin Tech over by itself into the West makes no sense.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Hmmm, pretty interesting topic . . .
The thought of expanding to 16 teams seems a bit far fetched, but if the Big Ten forces everybodies hand, I love the alignment that John has above. Keeping the orignal Pac 8 together, and then having an eastern division with all of the Texas and Arizona schools is very intriguing. The divisions would be balanced, there would be juggernauts in each divisions, and pansies in each division, it could just work. Not to mention the money would be great, it could be the future of college football.
The future: If the Big Ten decide to expand to 16 teams, I think the Pac10 would quickly follow suit, then everybody else would try and follow suit. Say we end up with 6 BCS conferences with 16 teams each, that’s 96 out of the 120 FBS schools!! As many of us have discuss before, take the 4 BCS bowls, each conference champion gets in plus two at large bids for Notre dame and another worthy non BCS school, the winners continue on to a 4 team playoff and you just created a playoff system that keeps the bowl system alive. Funny, AD’s and presidents want to keep the current system due to the almighty dollar, now the almighty dollar might just lead us into a playoff system.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Let all the indy's fight for the at larges
If this plan goes down, we’ll be looking at 5 BCS conferences (as the Big-12 will collapse under these circumstances) with 4 being a distinct possibility (if the ACC or Big East go to 12 or 16 and pillage each other). Give each one an AQ spot and let the rest from the AQ conferences fight with the non-AQ’s and indies for the other three/four. Notre Dame should not get special treatment for being great in the past, join a conference or prove your better this year.
Under the 16 team conference secenario the Big East and Big 12 would cease to exist. You would have four major conferences and three independents followed by the Mountain West, C-USA, and the Sunbelt.
Just saying that if you arent in the four majors you will be on the outside looking in but the borders will be a lot more defined.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Well that's assuming that the ACC goes to 16
and steals some Big East teams (vice versa is less likely but possible). I expect the SEC to expand first to keep their stronghold and the ACC to follow, but that might be a couple years away. I wonder how all this will go down. The Big-10 and Pac-10 control how every school in the country will play their hand.
I would think if the Big Ten and Pac Ten went to 16 the SEC and ACC would do the same thing over time.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
We've taken a baseball term (rosterbation) to a new level
I think Daschel’s scenario, if we are going to go to 16, works the best.
Don’t sleep on Baylor, either. They aren’t a BYU like religious institution and are beginning to recover from having the hammer laid down on them a while back.
The package presented keeps the old with the old and the new with the new and could actually go through with the school presidents. At this point, you have to figure out a way to lure Texas away from the Big 12, and the Big 10 for that matter, and into the Pac 10 (16?). Offering to take all the Texas schools may be the foot in the door the conference needs.
So...
Do we still need all 10 presidents to sign off? or 8 out of 10? or what?
Well there is the problem right there.
We won’t get all 10 to agree on anything.
It won't be that hard
We’re not stretching to add institutions that don’t fit the conference mold. Also, it’s like waving hundred dollar bills in front of the presidents.
So what was Stanford’s issue with Texas? It wasn’t like they would have been lowering the academic standards of the conference.
Not sure that Stanford had any issue with Texas.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
From what I read
The state of Texas said you can have UT, but you have to take A&M. Stanford said no because of A&M
Nice look at this article
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/16/conference-realignment/index.html
Big 10/Pac-10 etc, should just leave the NCAA
Awesome.
I do disagree with one team.
I would take UTAH over TCU.
Definately
he’s just throwing out the top 64 earners as examples. Clearly TCU’s not going to earn huge amounts every year, recent success has pushed them higher. They’re not a big time program, football wise they’re getting there, but that’s the only sport they’re even a moderate player in.
But as have been noted..
TCU is like #5 in the DFW market.
Exactly..so Grab Salt Lake...
..Or even Alberquque if need be.
I think we're arguing the same point here...
that whole article was a pipe dream from the get go. I was just saying that TCU was used because he took the top 64 earners last year and used it for his example. Everyone here knows that TCU won’t be in any conference that includes the Pac-8 teams.
Time zones...
When Chuck Knox came to town, he had the Hawks leave 2 days before a Central or Eastern time zone game. Seattle to Austin is a long way, not to mention College Station. I think we have to stay within the Mountain and Pacific zones.
“Not without my Baylor” is an interesting comment from an alcoholic about a Babtist school.
It's a long way, but only two time zones
remember that we’re playing LSU in two years in Baton Rouge. Travel happens and it’d only be one trip anually worst case.
Time Zones
That is the point why two eight team divisions are required if we are going to expand into the Central Time Zone.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
Not really an issue. With the 16 team conference idea that Daschel put forth, if you assume the conference scales back to 8 conference games you’d only have 1 game every other year that is with a team in the Mountain or Central time zones (less than that actually given that Arizona is Pacific Time).
The programs would incur a small increase in travel costs, but that should be more than made up for in increased TV and bowl revenue.
To Heck with PAC 10/Big 10
A pox on both their houses…getting a little tired of both thinking they have some type of proprietory rights to Texas….I’d like to see Texas, Texas A&M, Okla and OKLA state going to the SEC….the SEC is geographically much closer, has better climates, great TV contract, great sports…the academics might suffer, but a lot of the important areas are compatible. And, philosophically, Texas is closer to being simpatico with the SEC than either the uppidity/snobby Big 10 and the Hollywood Glam of the PAC 10.
Why would Texas want to recruit California? Texas has every bit and probably more great talent and it’s right in the back yard and only 25 can be chosen each year anyway.
Too bad about the other Texas Schools that would be left out, but they didn’t cry any crocodile tears when they screwed TCU, SMU, RICE, and HOUSTON when they were cut from the vine and left to wither and die…maybe it’s their turn to suffer rejection a little bit.
Steer
I agree with some of the things you are saying but academically Texas would benefit quite a bit from joining the Pac 10 or Big 10. Sports dollars are puny compared to research dollars. Wherever Texas goes they are assured of making money in sports…acadmically though there are advantages the Pac 10 and Big Ten can offer that the SEC and Big 12 will never ever come close too.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
Would be perfect
if the Pac could get the U of Texas, with:
1. Gonzaga’s basketball teams and
2. Boise State football
not possible, but a 2 division conference would rock!
north:
UW, WSU, GU/BSU, UO, OSU, USC
south:
ASU, UA, TX, Cal, UCLA, Stanford
doesnt this same talk happen all the time? I dont see them breaking off with Okla. and the Texas schools.
Grow a pair, Romar.
by UofWashRoadWarriors on Feb 18, 2010 4:46 PM PST reply actions
Please please please
No BSU GU speculation. Pac ten just isn’t going to do it period.
The talk is hitting its peak now because Texas is openly showing an interest in leaving and maximizing revenue somewhere else. The Big 12 just isn’t in a good spot and is vulnerable as it stands
by cougfan on Feb 18, 2010 4:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
BSU and GU
C’mon GU doesn’t have a football team and it isn’t a research University.
BSU is a converted community college in a tiny mrket with a blue field.
Taht being said everyone has an opinion to respect.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 18, 2010 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
I respect it
It just isn’t a reasonable expectation. We can speculate about turning to a 16 team conference, but taking schools for only certain sports is something the conference has never seemed to have the inclination to do
It's already happened
there are some associate members for Wrestling and Soccer.
They’ll never do it for revenue sports, but I’d just had to toss that in.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
