Ok, so are you suggesting that Missouri has the larger and/or stronger fan base than Nebraska?

I would say that there's some question about whether MU is the #1 option. I would argue that Notre Dame is probably the #1 option. Is Missouri the #1 option if the likes of Texas, Notre Dame, etc turn them down? Then maybe you're right. Missouri is definitely the most desperate.

Not saying that this isnt a ruomor still, but here is a good bit of info from the ESPN PAC-10 guy

Expansion? The case for Colorado - Pac-10 Blog - ESPN

Reading between the lines, it seems like Colorado is all but inviting itself to the PAC-10. It also won't be joining just because one other school leaves the Big-12, but because it's seems to identify more closely to the PAC-10 in a variety of ways

That's why I think Colorado makes the most sense as far as leaving the Big 12. They have so many built in ties with the Pac 10. The question though is the Pac 10 looking to expand? I think eventually Colorado leaves unless the Big 12 gives them a reason to stay. The Big 12 front office certainly hasn't given anybody in the Big 12 reason to stay though so I wouldn't count on it.

OK, I think you made your motivation pretty obvious with this post.

Fixed that for you.

But if you're trying to suggest that any conference would rather have Missouri than Notre Dame or Texas then you need to put down the crack pipe.

heh

Both were non-starters. I certainly wasn't addressing what the Big Ten's pipe dream would be and never said anything like that. Notre Dame eliminated themselves by refusing to join in football. Texas was eliminated as an option because the Big Ten isn't interested in taking all three Texas schools previously mentioned. They never were a consideration because they each eliminated themselves through their demands.

Horseshit, even by your own convoluted attempt to explain it.

If they "never were a consideration" then there would have been no need for them to eliminate themselves.

Florida, UCLA, Harvard = never were a consideration ... because they make no logical sense to anyone nor could the situation be made appealing enough to work in any scenario.

If the conference expands without, say, ND or Texas it isn't because they "never were a consideration" but rather because there was no hope (or willingness) to reach an acceptable agreement. But to argue that they were never considered is simply fucking stupid.

The influence Tech has on the Texas schools is being overstated. If push came to shove, Tech would be left behind. A&M is in a much stronger position at the moment, mainly due to the current governor being an A&M grad and appointing many of his former college buddies to influential posts in the A&M system.

That's fine. I'm only dealing with the present. We're splitting hairs at this point. As we currently stand, they are not an option for expansion. I'm agreeing with you.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Though, what I wonder is...if the Big East will invite University of the West Indies and say, University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez to compensate for the lost schools. I mean, they're great destinations for tournament games and UPR-M already hosts a early season tournament, so they're a logical candidate I think.

Until the Big 10 finds a way to beat elite teams from the South they will always be irrelevant (although well paid)

Chaminade would be a great choice following this logic. They already play in a D-1 preseason tourney every year and each conference member gets a trip to Maui.

This reminds me of back in the day when all we heard about was NFC dominance in the NFL. Things are cyclical.

Two national championships in 40 years is a cycle?;)

No. You guys will be well paid and irrelevant.

Alright, Nostradumass.

Did something happen? I don't see anything anywhere.

The answer is, it depends. Like all conferences, the Pac-10 is seeking ways to improve their revenue stream, especially after the recent economic downturn. The Pac-10 will expand if:

- Doing so raises revenue for all the member schools
- They can attract schools that fit their membership criteria

Regarding the first point, as noted earlier the Pac-10 TV deals expire soon, so there's some urgency to figure out whether expansion makes sense. But it seems (from the outside at least) to be a bit of a chicken/egg thing - does the Pac-10 expand in order to draw a better TV deal/deals, or does the Pac-10 need to get better TV deals in order to attract the schools they want?

Related to that, the Pac-10 is interested in having a football championship game and the revenue it would generate, and is investigating whether they can get around the rule requiring 12 teams in order to host such a game.

Also related to that is whether expanding would lead to better (and more lucrative) bowl arrangements. One major draw in trying to lure Texas & A&M (along with other Big-12 teams) is the potential to bring more of the Texas-based bowl games into the bowl pool for the conference.

Regarding the second point, it's been discussed quite a bit already in this thread. Suffice it to say that academics and research dollars also matter a great deal in all of this discussion.

This confirms what I thought and have read - A&M is always linked with Texas in any redistribution of teams, but I don't see much in the way of people thinking Tech also would be required to move with them. I get the impression the times are different now then back when Baylor and Tech were required to be tethered with Texas & A&M in the last go-round of conference shake-ups.

My motivation is to discuss these things rationally rather than having some crazy homer argument claiming how Missouri is the Big Ten's #1 option (after Texas, Notre Dame, etc turn it down). We're all homers to an extent when it comes to our teams, but your belief in Missouri is so delusional. I'm still waiting to hear your argument how Missouri's fan base is stronger and/or larger than Nebraska's.

Texas Tech actually joined the Big 12 on their own merits. It was Baylor that was amended due to the governor (?) at the time who was a Baylor grad. I think the only two Texas schools that are tied together now are Texas and Texas A&M. And both would fit well in any conference on their own merits so that wouldn't be a problem.

I just can't wait to see what happens when the expansion race begins. There's a chance we could see the SEC and Big Ten gobble up schools and then the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 10 will need to do some serious maneuvering.

For me, a BYU fan...losing Utah to the PAC-10 leaves us on the outside looking in..that is unless the Big 12 brings us in to replace Colorado which I doubt will happen.

I see the MWC inviting BSU into the conference if Utah leaves to the PAC-10, because I think TCU goes to the Big 12 over BYU...but who knows right now...part of the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that this will happen to keep the MWC out of getting the AQ.

The PAC-10 doesn't need to expand, but because of the money there, it is painted as an attractive option to expand. The relevance will always be there, unfortunately the TV contract sucks right now

Yeah, at the time both the Governor and Lt. Governor (the post with the real power in Texas government) were Baylor alumni.

I know it's not likely, but I'd love to see the Big 12 and Pac 10 do a network together. I just don't have confidence in the Big 12 front office.

Cartman,

What are Longhorn and Aggie fans thinking when it comes to expansion?

There hasn't been much talk actually. Most of it has been about how awesome it has been that Texas is at the top of all the wish lists. :)

I like you cartman, lol.

It's always possible but my gut read on the SEC's position is that they will if they feel they absolutely have to but that they have pretty limited interest in adding anyone & that they aren't interested in adding teams just for the sake of numbers.

I can see Texas, I could probably see FSU and/or Miami if they were really up against the wall for teams, but honestly I just don't get any feeling they actually want to add anybody.

Why would they? They'd be adding schools that would make the current members look bad from an academic and athletic ethics standpoint. :D

Plus playing Vandy would also be even more of a stretch for some of the teams :)

As a Kansas fan, that would be the last thing you want to happen. If the Big 12 manages to stay together, the power would be even further shifted to the south. If Kansas has to move, there's not very many good options available for them that would be a better situation than the status quo.

Best thing for Kansas would be no change in B12 teams.

I hate to break this to you, but the power has been in the south since Missouri and Colorado united with the south division in moving the headquarters to Dallas. Heck, Missouri and Colorado even voted for the old SWC commissioner (Steve Hatchell) who pretty much sank that conference. Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado leaving won't change the balance of power in any significant way. If anything maybe the north gains two voters who will actually align themselves with their north brethren this time, lol.

As for Kansas, they'll do what they have to do to survive. I have faith in the KU athletic director to keep them in a BCS conference. Lew Perkins is one of the better athletic directors out there and he'll make sure KU is in position to weather the storm. If that means hitching our wagon to Texas then so be it.

No question. And that's the reason these schools are considering these offers to move. With that said, it's going to be MUCH worse if Nebraska and Missouri leave. But I'm not sure Kansas has much choice at this point given that they don't hold any bargaining chips.

You're right to an extent. Kansas doesn't bring a major media market (only KC) nor do they bring a populated state. They do bring a prestigious basketball program with a national fan base which will help them survive. A prestigious football program would help more, but they at least have something to hang their hat on. The big question for Kansas is does a move for KU have to include KSU? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. That will show how easily Kansas can or can't move. It's going to be hard enough for Kansas to move on their own merits, but nearly impossible if KSU is handcuffed to them.

Again, with CU and MU voting with the south there is nothing gained by them staying or leaving. Them leaving may actually give the Big 12 north two teams that will actually vote with the rest of their division mates. Of course, now it's already too late since the balance of power was pushed to the south by the earlier votes of MU and CU. CU and MU are attempting to run away from the mess they created.

If I had my choice, I'd love to see both KU and MU head for the Big Ten. I think the Big Ten would be a much better fit for both schools and would make them less reliant on Texas. I don't think that will happen, but I'm also not sure that any Big 12 will be leaving for the Big Ten anytime soon. I don't want anyone to think I have something against Texas, but it's hard to run a conference where one state has so much power (deservedly so in this case).

The Kansas Board of Regents has already said that the two schools are a package deal. KU and KSU have to remain in the same conference. That was the reason I mentioned that they hold very few, if any, bargaining chips if MU and NU jump ship.

I read an interesting post from a supposed Big 12/Texas insider (take that for what it is worth) last night indicating that the Big 12 could look to add Arizona or Arizona State OR (more interestingly) that the Pac 10 and Big 12 could look to form a "Western Alliance" with the Pac 10. That could be interesting, with most of the California, Arizona, and Texas schools forming a loose alliance and selecting a handful of other good teams (Oklahoma, Kansas, Washington, Oregon) and cutting some of the dead weight (I'll leave it up to the other folks to determine who that would be. Supposedly, they could form a 16-team conference and network that would feature more TV homes than the current Big Ten and would rival a 16-team Big Ten. Could be interesting to follow.

I think the Big Ten almost has to go through with a large expansion, at this point. If they decide to stick with 11 or just add Missouri or Rutgers, the other conferences are going to work like hell to get their own networks and will be much less vulnerable in 5 or 10 years.

More importantly, the Big Ten has all the control right now. They can select whoever they want and they can set it up however they want. If they allow the other conferences to start making the moves, they end up in the reactionary position that they currently have some of the other conferences in. Always better to be the one calling the shots.

Where did you hear this from the Kansas board of regents? I'm not surprised they would say it, but I honestly haven't heard anyone mention this before. You don't by chance have a link do you?

I've seen that same theory mentioned as well. I would have no problem with it, but it would take a lot of vision and that's something I don't give the Big 12 front office credit for.

I don't. Gabe DeArmond and one of the other editors at the Rivals site had mentioned that the board had already made that decision. He didn't give a source, but I'm guessing you could probably verify in the meeting records.

That's why I could also see the ACC being the odd-man out if conference Armageddon occurs. I'm not sure that a lot of the schools in the ACC really enjoy UNC/Duke and the other North Carolina schools having such a disproportionate influence on the Conference.

Ugh. I wouldn't be surprised by anything the board of regents does. I would hope that they used common sense and wouldn't let one school drag the other down. I'm sorry, but neither KU nor KSU have the pull of a Texas or Texas A&M. It's one thing for a state like Texas to pull a move like this (Baylor), but if I'm a conference commissioner I laugh if the state of Kansas tries it. Idiotic if true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Is it really that bad in the ACC? I don't follow other conference politics that much since I get enough of it in the Big 12. What kind of issues have they had in the ACC?

I don't know. I don't really follow the conference politics at all. As far as I know, everyone is happy as a clam.

I just have a sense from inside the Triangle of how insular the mindset is here. For good or ill, I know that people here don't really care what any school other than Duke/UNC/State/Wake thinks or does.

And I know that when the ACC expanded, every school except for Duke and UNC was strongly for it, in large part b/c they wanted to dilute Duke/UNC's influence.

All that said, I don't go onto Rivals, etc. to really get a sense of what these other schools actually think.

FWIW, it's a common complaint around GT circles.

810 talked about this today and said that while no one will go on the record and say it, the state regents are unified in their support that Kansas and K-State are a package deal.

I have way too much faith in your AD too. I don't trust Lew Perkins as far as I can throw him. I think he's dirty too, and that will probably catch up with him at some point.

That's why I think Missouri has got to play it smart by playing along with the Big Ten's rules (keep everything quiet and don't talk about expansion) while watching Perkins. He'd given away the farm to take KU to the Big 10 and screw Missouri. Not because he's out to get MU but because he's going to do whatever it takes to help KU, no matter what.

Most of the prognostication is based on two major assumptions: 1) the Big 10 and Pac-10 want to expand to 12 teams to add a title game; and 2) the next trend for the BCS conference is to move toward 16-team leagues.

I think the Big Ten will set the tone on both. If the Big 10 adds a title game the Pac 10 is going to feel obligated simply to keep up with the Joneses. A title game is going to add $1-2 million per team to the bottom line.

If the Big 10 expands by more than one team, other conferences will feel the same motivation. If the Big 10 adds 3-5 teams those are going to be at the expense of the Big East and the Big 12. Those conferences are going to need to add teams to keep up. The SEC, ACC and Pac 10 will feel pressure to gobble up some of the better teams before they go elsewhere. There are way too many knowledgeable sources who will tell you that the conferences are headed toward a four-conference, 16-teams each super league that will break off from the FBS and create their own league with a plus-one title game.

If the Big 10 expands by one team, the movement will probably be minimum. Since Missouri seems to be the hot name right, let's assume they move to the Big 10. I think Colorado and Utah would be added to the Pac 10. The Big 12 needs two new teams and I think they call TCU and BYU first.

If the Big 10 goes to 16 teams, katy bar the door. In that case, I think the Big East and the Big 12 will be closed by the end of the decade, at least as far as football is concerned. The Big 12 will likely lose three teams and I think BYU would rather go to the Pac 10 than the Big 12. The Big 12 might pickup TCU but it's going to be slim pickings to find two more teams.

But the biggest problem is that I don't know why anyone would want to join the Big 12, and the fact that Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and maybe KU/KSU are campaigning to bail out should be evidence of that. The Big 12 doesn't share TV revenues equally, which means Texas and OU get almost twice as much as places like KU, MU and even Baylor. But to change the Big 12 constitution you have to have to have nine votes, which means the state of Texas essentially has completely control and veto power over the Big 12. The Big 12 isn't going to win a bidding war for any school -- the only schools that will join the Big 12 will be because they don't have another option. The Big 12 will get the leftovers.

However, if the SEC decides to raid the Big 12, the league is done. The SEC could peel off four Texas schools and be done, or maybe take Texas and A&M along with OU and OSU. If that happens, suddenly the Big 12 is looking for seven new teams. Yikes.