(07-28-2017 07:20 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think any school, or at least any FBS school could drag down the package of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to be not worth it as a fourth school. Having said that, there are better options that further enhance the three-pack.

I don't think WVU would add much to the profile of the conference. The market/geographic profile of the school doesn't add anything to the conference; Penn State, Maryland, and Ohio State all bleed into West Virginia. Maybe there would be additional coverage in Virginia but I don't know if that would be worth it. The Big Ten market is saturated there where there would be diminishing returns and the recruiting would be poor.

TCU and Rice may double up in Texas but at least Texas is the second most populated state. TCU doesn't have the research and Rice doesn't have the fans/alumni/support and sport performance but at least they would give everyone another opportunity to be seen in Texas. UT would like want another Texas school to get more games within the state. They will be leaving the Big 12 which currently guarantees them at least five games in Texas and that's if they don't play TCU, Baylor, or Texas Tech on the road. Recruiting could really be hit hard for them if they join a "mid-western" conference like the Big Ten and adding another Texas school and Oklahoma with them could counter the drop.

You're probably right about how TX would want a "partner" from their state to join them if they went to the B1G. I think from the B1G's perspective they'd have a hard time inviting another small, private school to the conference. I especially don't see them inviting a small, private, religious school like TCU. That pretty much leaves TTU as the only viable alternative. Would it be ideal? No, but sometimes if you want to date the prom queen you need to get a buddy to agree to double date with her ugly friend.

(07-29-2017 08:01 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 07:20 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think any school, or at least any FBS school could drag down the package of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to be not worth it as a fourth school. Having said that, there are better options that further enhance the three-pack.

I don't think WVU would add much to the profile of the conference. The market/geographic profile of the school doesn't add anything to the conference; Penn State, Maryland, and Ohio State all bleed into West Virginia. Maybe there would be additional coverage in Virginia but I don't know if that would be worth it. The Big Ten market is saturated there where there would be diminishing returns and the recruiting would be poor.

TCU and Rice may double up in Texas but at least Texas is the second most populated state. TCU doesn't have the research and Rice doesn't have the fans/alumni/support and sport performance but at least they would give everyone another opportunity to be seen in Texas. UT would like want another Texas school to get more games within the state. They will be leaving the Big 12 which currently guarantees them at least five games in Texas and that's if they don't play TCU, Baylor, or Texas Tech on the road. Recruiting could really be hit hard for them if they join a "mid-western" conference like the Big Ten and adding another Texas school and Oklahoma with them could counter the drop.

You're probably right about how TX would want a "partner" from their state to join them if they went to the B1G. I think from the B1G's perspective they'd have a hard time inviting another small, private school to the conference. I especially don't see them inviting a small, private, religious school like TCU. That pretty much leaves TTU as the only viable alternative. Would it be ideal? No, but sometimes if you want to date the prom queen you need to get a buddy to agree to double date with her ugly friend.

The B1G would probably want Rice over TTU if the last school had to come from Texas. They are an academic powerhouse and located in Houston, despite being a small private school. It would also smooth over those university presidents that might not necessarily love the idea of adding OU due to their lack of AAU status.

Quote:Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
J Delany reiterates at B10 media days if ESPN had come up with a more reasonable offer 13 years ago, Big Ten content would all be on ESPN.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: "We didn't mean to," upset, "the world," in expansion.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: ACC expansion made B10 feel "cramped." "More risk in staying where we were." Maryland, Rutgers "sleeping giants."

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Reads to me that conferences understand they can't go beyond a certain number without compromising beyond recognition the conference culture of each. That number may be 14 or 16 but certainly Delany is telling us that crazy numbers being bandied about in the message board rumor mill won't happen.

If so, best to get it over with and move on to other things. At minimum I think Kansas gets in, so #16 would be the great mystery.

(07-29-2017 08:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
J Delany reiterates at B10 media days if ESPN had come up with a more reasonable offer 13 years ago, Big Ten content would all be on ESPN.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: "We didn't mean to," upset, "the world," in expansion.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: ACC expansion made B10 feel "cramped." "More risk in staying where we were." Maryland, Rutgers "sleeping giants."

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Reads to me that conferences understand they can't go beyond a certain number without compromising beyond recognition the conference culture of each. That number may be 14 or 16 but certainly Delany is telling us that crazy numbers being bandied about in the message board rumor mill won't happen.

If so, best to get it over with and move on to other things. At minimum I think Kansas gets in, so #16 would be the great mystery.

I still think TX is the main target of the B1G. It might not be realistic, but I think they'd do whatever it took to land the big fish.

As for numbers, I'm sure they're all saying 14-16, but it the right candidate and he right $$$ comes along.......

(07-30-2017 09:51 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 08:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
J Delany reiterates at B10 media days if ESPN had come up with a more reasonable offer 13 years ago, Big Ten content would all be on ESPN.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: "We didn't mean to," upset, "the world," in expansion.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: ACC expansion made B10 feel "cramped." "More risk in staying where we were." Maryland, Rutgers "sleeping giants."

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Reads to me that conferences understand they can't go beyond a certain number without compromising beyond recognition the conference culture of each. That number may be 14 or 16 but certainly Delany is telling us that crazy numbers being bandied about in the message board rumor mill won't happen.

If so, best to get it over with and move on to other things. At minimum I think Kansas gets in, so #16 would be the great mystery.

I still think TX is the main target of the B1G. It might not be realistic, but I think they'd do whatever it took to land the big fish.

As for numbers, I'm sure they're all saying 14-16, but it the right candidate and he right $$$ comes along.......

I agree with you on both points. For the B1G its about Texas and money.

If getting Texas requires 1 additional member below B1G standards, I think the conference would accept. I think the conference would want Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas' friend.

(07-31-2017 09:12 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-30-2017 09:51 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(07-29-2017 08:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
J Delany reiterates at B10 media days if ESPN had come up with a more reasonable offer 13 years ago, Big Ten content would all be on ESPN.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: "We didn't mean to," upset, "the world," in expansion.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
Delany: ACC expansion made B10 feel "cramped." "More risk in staying where we were." Maryland, Rutgers "sleeping giants."

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account @dennisdoddcbs 9h9 hours ago
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Reads to me that conferences understand they can't go beyond a certain number without compromising beyond recognition the conference culture of each. That number may be 14 or 16 but certainly Delany is telling us that crazy numbers being bandied about in the message board rumor mill won't happen.

If so, best to get it over with and move on to other things. At minimum I think Kansas gets in, so #16 would be the great mystery.

I still think TX is the main target of the B1G. It might not be realistic, but I think they'd do whatever it took to land the big fish.

As for numbers, I'm sure they're all saying 14-16, but it the right candidate and he right $$$ comes along.......

I agree with you on both points. For the B1G its about Texas and money.

If getting Texas requires 1 additional member below B1G standards, I think the conference would accept. I think the conference would want Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas' friend.

To be sure. If Texas said to the B1G "we'd LOVE to be your date but you need to take our homely friend (Texas Tech) with", you can bet TT would be in the B1G before any of the other schools.

Quote:Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 3h3 hours ago
Woah... BTM has just sent me current Big Ten perception on expansion landscape. Stand by...

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 3h3 hours ago
BTM
Big Ten perception:
Presidential Succession at University of Oklahoma resulting in Joe Castiglione as new President looking more likely

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 3h3 hours ago
BTM
Joe Castiglione is Pro-Big Ten. OU Placing Castiglione as President is placing OU in Big Ten. OU has heavy B10 support.

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 3h3 hours ago
BTM
Active B10 advocates for OU receiving invite in 2022/23
WI President, Alvarez
Ohio State, Nebraska AD's Smith & Eichorst
MSU AD Hollis.

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 3h3 hours ago
Obvious take on BTM's info this morning..

Joe Castiglione is the canary-in-coal mine internally at University of Oklahoma.

Redhawk Land Service‏ @RedhawkLand 1h1 hour ago
Joe Castiglione has done a brilliant job as AD but he's not going to be OU President. It will be a be career administrator or politician

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 35m35 minutes ago
Replying to @RedhawkLand
Traditionally,this would be correct.Could be correct in regards to Boren's replacement. Big Ten perception is Boren is lining it up for Joe.

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 34m34 minutes ago
Replying to @flugempire @RedhawkLand
If Boren is successful it indicates OU to B10.

If OU ends up in SEC, PAC or B12 it means OU said no to B10.

Not other way around.
Truth.

Grain of salt and all that.

It is interesting to speculate about who would join with Oklahoma. I don't know how much their recruiting will be effected if they aren't playing an in-conference game against a school in Texas. Obviously they have a great brand but is that enough without playing more than once in Texas a year?

(08-21-2017 08:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  It is interesting to speculate about who would join with Oklahoma. I don't know how much their recruiting will be effected if they aren't playing an in-conference game against a school in Texas. Obviously they have a great brand but is that enough without playing more than once in Texas a year?

I would think Kansas would be the obvious choice. Keeps the Big Ten footprint contiguous, and adds to the basketball of the conference (which in turn helps the BTN renewal rate). Texas would be a real coup, but I'm not so sure the Longhorns would be interested in the being - by far - the Southernmost team in a Northern conference.

(08-21-2017 09:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 08:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  It is interesting to speculate about who would join with Oklahoma. I don't know how much their recruiting will be effected if they aren't playing an in-conference game against a school in Texas. Obviously they have a great brand but is that enough without playing more than once in Texas a year?

I would think Kansas would be the obvious choice. Keeps the Big Ten footprint contiguous, and adds to the basketball of the conference (which in turn helps the BTN renewal rate). Texas would be a real coup, but I'm not so sure the Longhorns would be interested in the being - by far - the Southernmost team in a Northern conference.

Kansas doesn't bring a football brand with them, nor do they bring a significant fan base/market or recruiting grounds. Their academics are acceptable, probably on the low end of the Big Ten. Is that enough to offset Oklahoma's even lower academics? Texas is the obvious partner but how likely is that? However, for recruiting purposes, I'd rather be the southernmost school in a northern conference than the northernmost school in a southern conference.

(08-22-2017 05:40 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 09:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 08:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  It is interesting to speculate about who would join with Oklahoma. I don't know how much their recruiting will be effected if they aren't playing an in-conference game against a school in Texas. Obviously they have a great brand but is that enough without playing more than once in Texas a year?

I would think Kansas would be the obvious choice. Keeps the Big Ten footprint contiguous, and adds to the basketball of the conference (which in turn helps the BTN renewal rate). Texas would be a real coup, but I'm not so sure the Longhorns would be interested in the being - by far - the Southernmost team in a Northern conference.

Kansas doesn't bring a football brand with them, nor do they bring a significant fan base/market or recruiting grounds. Their academics are acceptable, probably on the low end of the Big Ten. Is that enough to offset Oklahoma's even lower academics? Texas is the obvious partner but how likely is that? However, for recruiting purposes, I'd rather be the southernmost school in a northern conference than the northernmost school in a southern conference.

Texas will be the outright top choice, since ND is obviously not in the fold for the B1G. Kansas is only coming to the conference if it expands to 18 or Texas outright rejects them.

(08-22-2017 04:14 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(08-22-2017 05:40 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 09:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 08:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  It is interesting to speculate about who would join with Oklahoma. I don't know how much their recruiting will be effected if they aren't playing an in-conference game against a school in Texas. Obviously they have a great brand but is that enough without playing more than once in Texas a year?

I would think Kansas would be the obvious choice. Keeps the Big Ten footprint contiguous, and adds to the basketball of the conference (which in turn helps the BTN renewal rate). Texas would be a real coup, but I'm not so sure the Longhorns would be interested in the being - by far - the Southernmost team in a Northern conference.

Kansas doesn't bring a football brand with them, nor do they bring a significant fan base/market or recruiting grounds. Their academics are acceptable, probably on the low end of the Big Ten. Is that enough to offset Oklahoma's even lower academics? Texas is the obvious partner but how likely is that? However, for recruiting purposes, I'd rather be the southernmost school in a northern conference than the northernmost school in a southern conference.

Texas will be the outright top choice, since ND is obviously not in the fold for the B1G. Kansas is only coming to the conference if it expands to 18 or Texas outright rejects them.

The PAC contract is up the year after yours. There is another way to Texas for the Big 10 without having to go through Kansas, or take Oklahoma, Colorado. Colorado is contiguous with Nebraska and except for a slither of an Oklahoma panhandle tip, Texas. Both are AAU and while the Buffs have strong connections to California with their alumni base I can think of 14 million annual reasons for them to reconsider.

Plus taking Colorado begins to build a bridge West as well as into Texas. They are the central piece into opening up another vista for the Big 10, and they are cash hungry.

Guys, it's pretty simple: Kansas and Oklahoma is the goal, with maybe Kansas individually if nothing else pans out. I tend to take the view that's much wider than footballflagshipsyeah. All this talk about Texas and (oh, please) Colorado screams "Wild Goose Chase" to me.

(08-22-2017 10:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Guys, it's pretty simple: Kansas and Oklahoma is the goal, with maybe Kansas individually if nothing else pans out. I tend to take the view that's much wider than footballflagshipsyeah. All this talk about Texas and (oh, please) Colorado screams "Wild Goose Chase" to me.

Colorado screams markets and a higher standard of living than Kansas to me. But I agree there is a wild goose chase, Texas. They aren't inclined to do anything other than play as many Texas schools as is possible and to maintain relations with ESPN. But I admit every conference would love to have them for their content value, but fears to have them as a partner.

Didn't mean to be flippant on Colorado. They're a fine school and it would be a privilege to have them in the league but the time zone becomes an issue once you cross the state border. In the far future anything is possible, even a coast-to-coast league. We're not there yet. That's all I'm saying.

(08-22-2017 11:57 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Didn't mean to be flippant on Colorado. They're a fine school and it would be a privilege to have them in the league but the time zone becomes an issue once you cross the state border. In the far future anything is possible, even a coast-to-coast league. We're not there yet. That's all I'm saying.

Transic I didn't take your post as anything but your preference. It was my intention when I posted to just point out that there are other options, but most of our discussions are so focused on Texas and Oklahoma that sometimes they are missed, even at the SEC board.

(08-22-2017 05:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-22-2017 04:14 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(08-22-2017 05:40 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 09:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 08:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  It is interesting to speculate about who would join with Oklahoma. I don't know how much their recruiting will be effected if they aren't playing an in-conference game against a school in Texas. Obviously they have a great brand but is that enough without playing more than once in Texas a year?

I would think Kansas would be the obvious choice. Keeps the Big Ten footprint contiguous, and adds to the basketball of the conference (which in turn helps the BTN renewal rate). Texas would be a real coup, but I'm not so sure the Longhorns would be interested in the being - by far - the Southernmost team in a Northern conference.

Kansas doesn't bring a football brand with them, nor do they bring a significant fan base/market or recruiting grounds. Their academics are acceptable, probably on the low end of the Big Ten. Is that enough to offset Oklahoma's even lower academics? Texas is the obvious partner but how likely is that? However, for recruiting purposes, I'd rather be the southernmost school in a northern conference than the northernmost school in a southern conference.

Texas will be the outright top choice, since ND is obviously not in the fold for the B1G. Kansas is only coming to the conference if it expands to 18 or Texas outright rejects them.

The PAC contract is up the year after yours. There is another way to Texas for the Big 10 without having to go through Kansas, or take Oklahoma, Colorado. Colorado is contiguous with Nebraska and except for a slither of an Oklahoma panhandle tip, Texas. Both are AAU and while the Buffs have strong connections to California with their alumni base I can think of 14 million annual reasons for them to reconsider.

Plus taking Colorado begins to build a bridge West as well as into Texas. They are the central piece into opening up another vista for the Big 10, and they are cash hungry.

I'd LOVE to have Colorado in the B1G. Competitive sports, large media market, AAU. Seems like a good fit. The timezone would be an issue but a little scheduling wizardry could solve that.

I for one have been and am still meh on Kansas. The ONLY reason I'd take them is if TX insisted on it, out side of that, I don't see them adding much value.

Texas could be in an interesting position in 5 years or so. If OK bolts and KS does the same, would they try and make a run as an independent? Try and reform the Big 12 knowing if would be a glorified AAC and probably be left out of the final 4 discussion? Swallow their pride a bit and join the ACC, PAC, or B1G knowing they'd have a home where people want them.

Colorado and Kansas would be fine in terms of geography and staying within the former Big 8 parameters. Oklahoma is a brand that if they're interested in joining would be hard to turn down. My opinion is Colorado opens up ONLY if the PAC gets so behind monetarily that they'd be better off going back to 10 members. Then a combination of Colorado and Utah might be possible. Combined population would be over 8 million, equivalent to the population of New York City. KU and OU would then join the SEC and Texsa can do what it wants.

However, until that is known I can't assume that Colorado would be available or even interested. So we're back to looking at Kansas and Oklahoma.

(08-23-2017 08:52 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Colorado and Kansas would be fine in terms of geography and staying within the former Big 8 parameters. Oklahoma is a brand that if they're interested in joining would be hard to turn down. My opinion is Colorado opens up ONLY if the PAC gets so behind monetarily that they'd be better off going back to 10 members. Then a combination of Colorado and Utah might be possible. Combined population would be over 8 million, equivalent to the population of New York City. KU and OU would then join the SEC and Texsa can do what it wants.

However, until that is known I can't assume that Colorado would be available or even interested. So we're back to looking at Kansas and Oklahoma.

Nobody knows what the heck Texas will ultimately want to do. In 2018 the Big 10 will be 14 million dollars a year ahead of the PAC in payouts. That's 140 million plus in a decade. That's reason enough for Colorado to leave. Hold Colorado and then future options all the way to California open up. Let's say the PAC was willing to try to make it work at 10 again. It's a mistake, but let's assume. When the final reality of their situation sinks in what do they do? The California 4 and Washington make a lot more sense in the Big 10 at that point than anywhere else. Then Oregon and Utah and Arizona take you to 24 and 4 divisions of 6 essentially making the Big 10 a coast to coast conference of AAU schools.

I know sounds unwieldy and far fetched right? Last year Slive did an interview on a Birmingham radio station. He said when the rights deals were up that he expected realignment might take a direction that led to very, very large conferences. He intimated that leverage and future rights deals for content might take it in that direction.

If that proved to be true, what is the logical direction for the Big 10 to grow in? The most Big 10 like schools are in the West, not down the East coast. Texas is a huge iffy proposal for any conference. Kansas and Iowa State are essentially Big 10 schools and will always be there if you call on them. Colorado is the key to the Big 10's best future. I think the PAC knew that when they took them. Hold Colorado and you can stop expansion from bridging to the West. And even if the Big 10 never expanded beyond Colorado having the Buffs is still key to moving into Texas. If you hold both Colorado and Kansas then you hold enough games close enough for the Horns that taking two Texas schools would make it possible to have a 6 team SW division if you toss in Nebraska and Iowa. They might go for that.

It's really the same thinking the SEC is having. Take Texa-homa and add Arkansas and Missouri and you have a 6 team division the Horns could join.

It's going to take something like that to land them. But boy there is room for regret for either of our conferences if we succeeded with it.

(08-24-2017 01:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 08:52 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Colorado and Kansas would be fine in terms of geography and staying within the former Big 8 parameters. Oklahoma is a brand that if they're interested in joining would be hard to turn down. My opinion is Colorado opens up ONLY if the PAC gets so behind monetarily that they'd be better off going back to 10 members. Then a combination of Colorado and Utah might be possible. Combined population would be over 8 million, equivalent to the population of New York City. KU and OU would then join the SEC and Texsa can do what it wants.

However, until that is known I can't assume that Colorado would be available or even interested. So we're back to looking at Kansas and Oklahoma.

Nobody knows what the heck Texas will ultimately want to do. In 2018 the Big 10 will be 14 million dollars a year ahead of the PAC in payouts. That's 140 million plus in a decade. That's reason enough for Colorado to leave. Hold Colorado and then future options all the way to California open up. Let's say the PAC was willing to try to make it work at 10 again. It's a mistake, but let's assume. When the final reality of their situation sinks in what do they do? The California 4 and Washington make a lot more sense in the Big 10 at that point than anywhere else. Then Oregon and Utah and Arizona take you to 24 and 4 divisions of 6 essentially making the Big 10 a coast to coast conference of AAU schools.

I know sounds unwieldy and far fetched right? Last year Slive did an interview on a Birmingham radio station. He said when the rights deals were up that he expected realignment might take a direction that led to very, very large conferences. He intimated that leverage and future rights deals for content might take it in that direction.

If that proved to be true, what is the logical direction for the Big 10 to grow in? The most Big 10 like schools are in the West, not down the East coast. Texas is a huge iffy proposal for any conference. Kansas and Iowa State are essentially Big 10 schools and will always be there if you call on them. Colorado is the key to the Big 10's best future. I think the PAC knew that when they took them. Hold Colorado and you can stop expansion from bridging to the West. And even if the Big 10 never expanded beyond Colorado having the Buffs is still key to moving into Texas. If you hold both Colorado and Kansas then you hold enough games close enough for the Horns that taking two Texas schools would make it possible to have a 6 team SW division if you toss in Nebraska and Iowa. They might go for that.

It's really the same thinking the SEC is having. Take Texa-homa and add Arkansas and Missouri and you have a 6 team division the Horns could join.

It's going to take something like that to land them. But boy there is room for regret for either of our conferences if we succeeded with it.

I posted on this board the other day that Northwestern and Colorado had scheduled a home-and-home series for next decade. If that's the case then it would make sense to put Colorado and Northwestern in the same division. Nebraska would act as a bridge to connect the eastern and western spheres of influence. In that case, I would pick Utah and the Salt Lake market over Kansas. Then create a "Pac 8" division for the West Coast and Arizona schools. The "Central Division" would for certain cover a vast amount of territory but would include the Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Omaha, Denver and Salt Lake markets. That covers a lot of people. Poor Purdue gets put in the East but I don't think they'd really mind in the end.

I'm open to that idea and I know it's not perfect and needs work but, like I've said, certain conditions have to be present before looking into it seriously.