(06-16-2013 12:29 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 06:11 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 05:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 12:47 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  The PAC 12 really didn't want OSU & Texas Tech even when it included getting Texas & OU. No way they take them with Iowa State & Kansas State.

This, with a bullet.

I guess Larry issuing invites to Oklahoma St and Tech( I admit contingent on UT accepting as well) were make believe. Quite a few fans hope OSU and Tech get left behind but the reality is the PAC doesn't have many options if they ever decide to expand.

Texas has 26mm residents and Tech delivers a decent portion of this state. Despite what the naysayers think, Tech and Oklahoma St will be fine if the Big 12 falls apart.

No it wasn't make-believe. But yes it was, as you correctly state, contingent on UT coming along, too. No Bevo? No deal.

I don't hope TT and OSU get "left behind" and I don't think they will. I actually think the Big <12 is a much more stable structure than widely realized, and will be around for a long, long time, with all 10 of its current members.

My point is simply that the Pac-12 will not take new members that it doesn't really want (and yes, that includes both Texas Tech and Oklahoma State), unless they get 1 or 2 new members that it Does really want, too (like Texas and, to a lesser extent, Oklahoma or Kansas). If, in the end, that strategy compels the Pac-12 to stay at 12, well then they will stay at 12.

Agree with this line of thinking.

Agreed that espn will not want texas in either the pac or big 10. I think for the sec to take texas one of two things would needy to happen. Either Missouri joins the big 10 with say KU and that opens 3 spots for the sec to take texas, OU and either ok state or texas tech. Or the sec jumps to 18 with texas, texas tech, ou and ok state. That isn't a bad option for the sec if the could get a rule change and go with 3 pods of 6:

pod a- UK, UT, Vandy, SCar, UGA, UF
pod b- Ala, Aub, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, TA&M
pod c- Texas, TTech, OU, Ok state, ARK, Missouri

rule change = 2 game playoff among pod winners with a 5-2-2 football format. It would basically cut some of the fat from the big 12/sec union. You could have the first playoff game in atlanta with school x getting a bye to meet the winner in new orleans...the winner of that game is lock for the playoff. YEt, who knows if the sec wants to go so far west with expansion. My guess is if texas leaves the big 12, they will look to the pac, big 10 or acc. If the sec really wanted to make a play for texas, they should invite OU and OK state to get to 16 which would put huge pressure on texas to do something. With all their rivals in the sec, such a move could happen.

(06-15-2013 11:31 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  If SDSU and Fresno would improve their athletic programs to an comparable level as the Big12 teams, you might have an argument. However, conferences like the Big12 are not in the business of charity. So SDSU and Fresno have no chance.

I think it is more Academics than Athletics. Fresno and SDSU both were MWC co-champs. SDSU basketball is stronger than most in the Big 12 and Fresno baseball has won a national championship.

But both Fresno and SDSU are legally prohibited from offering doctoral degrees which makes them undesirable to the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world. But again this is just more lost opportunity. Nothing legally stops them from offering joint doctoral degrees. The University of Kansas or Oklahoma could easily partner with Fresno as an example to offer joint doctoral degrees and provide themselves access to the huge California based agricultural industry or do joint doctoral work regarding the Monterrey Shale oil exploration which is all around Fresno. Such a partnership would greatly increase the research budget of the schools and their academic standing.

I don't believe the SEC will end up taking in any B12 South teams.

With UT/OU and the SEC West teams, neither side wants to join the other for the same reason: it raises competition to an extremely high level and will result in W/L records well below the high expectations for those schools in most seasons.

Without those two, any talk of their tag-alongs is a non-starter.

Instead, what OU/UT really want is a nice little western division of the PAC they can dominate athletically while still being linked with the prestigious academic schools on the coastal division.

The PAC 12 could add 4 from the Big 12 to get to 16 teams.

The SEC could add 2 from the Big 12 to get to 16.

The Big could add 2 from the Big 12 to get to 16.

The ACC would at least add West Virginia.

The current Big 12 and where each school would go:

West Virginia ACC
Iowa State PAC 12
Kansas Big 10
Kansas State Big 10
Oklahoma SEC
Oklahoma State PAC 12
Texas SEC
Texas Tech PAC 12
TCU PAC 12
Baylor AAC/MWC/CUSA

I'll bet you a million bucks that scenario won't happen, Wilkie...

(06-16-2013 10:56 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Agreed that espn will not want texas in either the pac or big 10. I think for the sec to take texas one of two things would needy to happen. Either Missouri joins the big 10 with say KU and that opens 3 spots for the sec to take texas, OU and either ok state or texas tech. Or the sec jumps to 18 with texas, texas tech, ou and ok state. That isn't a bad option for the sec if the could get a rule change and go with 3 pods of 6:

pod a- UK, UT, Vandy, SCar, UGA, UF
pod b- Ala, Aub, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, TA&M
pod c- Texas, TTech, OU, Ok state, ARK, Missouri

rule change = 2 game playoff among pod winners with a 5-2-2 football format. It would basically cut some of the fat from the big 12/sec union. You could have the first playoff game in atlanta with school x getting a bye to meet the winner in new orleans...the winner of that game is lock for the playoff. YEt, who knows if the sec wants to go so far west with expansion. My guess is if texas leaves the big 12, they will look to the pac, big 10 or acc. If the sec really wanted to make a play for texas, they should invite OU and OK state to get to 16 which would put huge pressure on texas to do something. With all their rivals in the sec, such a move could happen.

ESPN doesn't want to lose the Big 10 top tier rights and those expire after the 2016 season.

If the cost to keep those top tier rights is to broker Texas into the Big 10, I doubt they hesitate and they have the leverage of owning the Horns third tier rights for a long time.

I suspect ESPN would prefer Texas in the Big 10 with a long-term Big 10 top tier rights deal to Texas being in the Big XII and Fox holding the Big 10 rights top to bottom.

(06-16-2013 11:42 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'll bet you a million bucks that scenario won't happen, Wilkie...

I'll toss in a few bucks as well

I think Satan will be ice skating before we're invited to the ACC

(06-16-2013 11:42 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'll bet you a million bucks that scenario won't happen, Wilkie...

Can't see the PAC taking all the "State" teams. Not that I have any problems with them....I just think are are part of a bigger package, and they come in pairs.

Why would Texas want to join a conference that they do not have the power they currently enjoy. They have a much easier path to be in the playoffs, and they make more money than any other team in college sports.

If they had wanted to be in the Pac-12, Big-10, SEC, or ACC they would already be there.

(06-16-2013 01:06 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would Texas want to join a conference that they do not have the power they currently enjoy. They have a much easier path to be in the playoffs, and they make more money than any other team in college sports.

If they had wanted to be in the Pac-12, Big-10, SEC, or ACC they would already be there.

Texas will be financially great no matter where they end up. Just maybe in a few years UT won't be the one to have their sayabout the Big XII. Just maybe the B1G or SEC comes calling for KU, WVU and OU. Just maybe the old Longhorns show themselves and the same old crap starts again. It might be the Big Six.

True, things stand where they stand cause texas likes to be the boss. I do find it strange that texas made the most $ but didn't take care of its conference members otherwise the big 12 might have never lost anybody. No ? there are outside forces at play that want to change the landscape and texas might not be able to control its serfdom when those forces move. I would agree putting texas and OU in the sec is crazy, makes it too hard. The only way such a concept works is if the sec goes past 16 and they probably don't want to do it. I'm growing on the idea of OU in the big 10, put them with KU and that's a nice 16 team setup. The ? is how much impact would OU have with say the BTN in the state of texas? + throw in the politics of OU going solo. IF texas really wants to lone wolf it, i could see them be team 16 in the acc with football being indy. Of course, my guess would be if the big 10 did come after OU, OU might try to leverage that move to save OK state. They could call the pac 10 and SEC and try to get them to offer both OU/OK state + they call texas and say you better get a package deal with texas, tex tech, OU and OK state somewhere or we join the big 10 solo. THe pac 16 concept works best but that might turn into a pac 20 concept. I mean if the pac 10 offered Texas, Texas tech, OU, Ok state, KU and KState to jump to 18, that could happen ASAP. No politics since kid brother is on board + big 12 could disband.

PAC 18

A: wash, wash state, Oreg, Oreg state, Utah, Colorado
B: USC, UCLA, CAL, Stan, Ariz, ASU
C: Tex, Tex tech, OU, OK state, KU, KSU

5-2-2 format with rule change but a pac 20 probably works better. I'd bring in Houston and one from new mexico, tcu or baylor.

I predicted the B1G taking Rutgers & Maryland in 2011. That was not a surprise to me. This is what they've done since 1990 and where I think they might go:

1) Penn State & Nebraska (strengthens FB)
2) Rutgers & Maryland (strengthens markets)
3) Kansas & UConn (strengthens BB, to keep up with the ACC)

By getting Kansas & UConn, the B1G would easily be the #1 or #2 BB conference, and the #3 conference (whoever it is) would be a very distant #3. The PAC-12, SEC, and Big 12 could never come close to the ACC and B1G in this scenario.

However, FB is king, so it wouldn't shock me if the B1G went after Kansas & Oklahoma next. That would improve their BB & FB. Kansas & Oklahoma don't have UConn's academics, but they're close.

(06-16-2013 10:56 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Agreed that espn will not want texas in either the pac or big 10.''''' I think for the sec to take texas''''' one of two things would needy to happen. '''for the sec to take texas, OU''''''' and either ok state or texas tech. Or the sec jumps to 18 with texas, texas tech, ou and ok state.

If the sec really wanted to make a play for texas, '''''they should invite OU''''' and OK state to get to 16 which would put huge pressure on texas to do something. With all their rivals in the sec, such a move could happen.

You make it sound like certain things would have to happen for the SEC to 'TAKE' Texas and even OU.

I will remind you, that no way is the SEC going to GET Texas (see my above post on this). Also, it has been reported that the OU powers that be, have turned down one SEC invitation and have said they want no part of the SEC culture.

I believe OU turned down the sec cause they didn't want to take Ok state too...pretty funny stuff with OU getting snobby about the culture/academics of the sec, pot meet kettle. Historically, OU might be the most corrupt program when barry switzer was running the show and what's the difference between say ou and uga academically today? I do think KU is a lock if the big 10 expands to 16 but i doubt Uconn is getting an invite. In a 16 team setup, i think the big 10 wants 2 western school's so they can shift purdue over. Thus, team 16 would be from the trio of texas, ou or missouri. IF the big 10 is going for an eastern school in a few years, i think FSU gets a sniff before uconn. Heck, fsu could be placed in the big 10 west division with KU since flying is flying. Longterm, i think the ideal for the big 10 would be to have outpost in texas and FL given they hit the NY/dc area now, that's big money. New england with uconn or BC might get some interest but i'd go with it being below the other targets.

Quote:and what's the difference between say ou and uga academically?

Bad example, UGA is actually a consistent Top 25 public school.

I think you meant to say "and whats the difference between say OU and Tennessee academically?"

Like I said in my last post, its not about culture or academics but "we're too good to associate with them" sounds a lot better than "if we play with them we're gonna get our butts kicked a lot more frequently than our spoiled fans will tolerate"

(06-16-2013 01:49 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 10:56 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Agreed that espn will not want texas in either the pac or big 10.''''' I think for the sec to take texas''''' one of two things would needy to happen. '''for the sec to take texas, OU''''''' and either ok state or texas tech. Or the sec jumps to 18 with texas, texas tech, ou and ok state.

If the sec really wanted to make a play for texas, '''''they should invite OU''''' and OK state to get to 16 which would put huge pressure on texas to do something. With all their rivals in the sec, such a move could happen.

You make it sound like certain things would have to happen for the SEC to 'TAKE' Texas and even OU.

I will remind you, that no way is the SEC going to GET Texas (see my above post on this). Also, it has been reported that the OU powers that be, have turned down one SEC invitation and have said they want no part of the SEC culture.

The SEC culture statement has always puzzled me. What in the hell is wrong with the SEC culture? It is the most exciting, awesome culture in all of CFB. Nice weather, great scenery( yep...both types...) and the most awesome tailgaters ever. I guess that is too much for plainsmen... OU is awesome, but that is a bad excuse. They know it don't they? Sure they do...

(06-16-2013 02:08 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I believe OU turned down the sec cause they didn't want to take Ok state too...pretty funny stuff with OU getting snobby about the culture/academics of the sec, pot meet kettle. Historically, OU might be the most corrupt program when barry switzer was running the show and what's the difference between say ou and uga academically today? I do think KU is a lock if the big 10 expands to 16 but i doubt Uconn is getting an invite. In a 16 team setup, i think the big 10 wants 2 western school's so they can shift purdue over. Thus, team 16 would be from the trio of texas, ou or missouri. IF the big 10 is going for an eastern school in a few years, i think FSU gets a sniff before uconn. Heck, fsu could be placed in the big 10 west division with KU since flying is flying. Longterm, i think the ideal for the big 10 would be to have outpost in texas and FL given they hit the NY/dc area now, that's big money. New england with uconn or BC might get some interest but i'd go with it being below the other targets.

Yes, OU was one of the more corrupt programs during the Switzer days in the 1970's. However, since David Boren, who was a Rhodes Scholar, became President.... OU has stressed playing by the rules and placed a big emphasis on academics.

(06-16-2013 12:04 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:42 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'll bet you a million bucks that scenario won't happen, Wilkie...

I'll toss in a few bucks as well

I think Satan will be ice skating before we're invited to the ACC

I agree.
I think there may be a few fans that are disgruntled with the move to the B12, but that may be because of the poor results on the field and on the court last year. We can hope that changes ASAP.
If the B12 where to implode I would pray for a SEC invite. They are like minded schools.
But the chances of the B12 imploding are slim to none IMHO.

If you think the Big 10 would go for OU/KU, why wouldn't they first try for OU/Texas?