I agree. The Big 10 might take KU. If not, the MWC is probably the best basketball conference for a conference that has football as well other than the Big 10/Pac Ten/ACC/Big East/SEC. Maybe almost on par with the SEC after Kentucky.

I would be shocked if Kansas doesn't end up in a BCS level conference. I know there are rumors of KU being tied with KSU, but I don't believe the Kansas Board of Regents are naive enough to think they can force a BCS conference to take both. I'd love to see KU and KSU stick together for rivalry reasons, but I think they'll split up if they have to. And given the fact that KSU doesn't have a lot of clout they may have to. KU at least has the KC market and a national following in basketball. They'll find a home some where.

DTR,

That list for Pac-10 schools is being reported on quite a few sites including the Texas site. Wonder if they all got it from the same original source or from multiple independant sources. I hope it is true as this would be a great move for the Pac-10.

While I'm not surprised there's talk of a major expansion of the Pac-10 involving Big-12 schools, I am a little surprised to see Tech and the Oklahoma schools mentioned as invites. Obviously Oklahoma has a tremendous football program that would add definite appeal to new TV negotiations, but the school itself does not fit the academic profile that the Pac-10 aspires to - it's not an AAU member (7 of 10 Pac schools are), and it's not at the highest tier of research universities (rated an RU/H by Carnegie; all Pac-10 schools are RU/VH). Same with Oklahoma State.

Because of that, I could see the Kansas schools being targeted above the Oklahoma schools. Kansas obviously brings with it an elite basketball program and is itself an AAU university and rated an RH/VH; Kansas State is also an RH/VH.

The Big 12 commish just cancelled a presser for tomorrow where they were supposed to address expansion issues. I wonder if the Pac-10 talk caught them off guard:

"Beebe abruptly cancels presser" - Behind the Stripes - ColumbiaTribune.com

I think OU is a better school than people give it credit for. They have made a lot of strides to attract good students. I'm an alum, so I'm biased, and I'm not naive enough to think that it's an elite school in the nation, but there are some good things.

I also think that OU makes more sense because of national football appeal, and a generally pretty good athletic department. OSU and Tech are the bigger surprises, in my opinion. I think KU makes more sense than Tech, but I can see Tech as being the bridge through New Mexico (not that it makes any difference).

OSU is kind of a weird one too, but they bring Pickens' money and good facilities. Plus, it sets up a nice road trip the way the Pac 10 likes to do things.

Another reason for the Oklahoma schools is that they are a college sports market. I think that OKC is battling each year with Colombus, OH for the top-rated TV market for college athetics. People will watch OU, but also care what else is going on in the country.

Colorado AD says he expects that CU and five other schools will receive an invitation to the Pac 10.

Bohn says CU, five other Big 12 schools likely to be invited to Pac-10 - Buffzone

Beebe has been 'caught off guard' continuously over his entire reign. He was oblivious to the risks with the Big 12's conference setup until it was far too late to do anything about it. It seemed like he was the only one who couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel was a train.

The setup with the Pac-10 and most of the South schools seems like a match made in heaven. It also all but guarantees that the Big Ten will go to 14-16 teams and greatly increases the chances that Notre Dame will reconsider their position or be left out of the power structure.

Good to see the PAC-10 making an effort to expand their conference. Im not sure Im in favor of it but I dont think it's a bad thing either. It would be funny if the PAC-10 takes those 6 teams and then Notre Dame decides to go to the Big-11 and they stop at 12 teams.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not arguing that the student academic experience at Oklahoma is not top-notch. It's important to note that what things like the U.S. News & World Report ratings are evaluating and what things like the Carnegie Foundation classifications are evaluating are different.

The U.S. News rankings are more relevant to the student and their experience.

What the Carnegie Foundation is evaluating is more relevant to what the Pac-10 is most concerned about - a school's status as a research university and what that means in terms of research funding and information sharing.

And in that regard, the Oklahoma schools are not rated as highly as all of the Pac-10 schools, whereas Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, Kansas and Kansas State are. Nebraska and Mizzou too, FWIW.

Now, maybe the football appeal of Oklahoma is enough to trump that - could be. But don't underestimate the influence that research funding will have in all of this, as it's a big part of the makeup of the Pac-10.

Just curious. Why would that even be an option assuming the Pac-10 move? The Big Ten would still hold the cards they want at that point. They could be one of two conferences to basically hand pick their power conference much like the Pac-10 appears ready to do. If they move to 12, they risk allowing other conferences to pick up the power schools from the Big 12 North and are then left in a position where they may be the last conference to move to 16 teams and not have their optimal choices. I suppose you're correct that it would be funny because it would be a boneheaded move of the highest caliber, which isn't something that would be expected of that conference's leadership.

Because they do the math and it results in a higher per team pay out for the conference members?

Not saying the math does work out that way...but who knows...

But they likely will have to expand to 16 teams anyway. That's the way the dominoes are going to fall. They allow a conference like Conference USA to make a big power play and pick up some major teams. Or the SEC hand-picks a few. The Big Ten then has to figure out how to squeeze water out of a rock by looking over the leftovers to play catch-up.

I'm going to give the Big Ten leadership credit that they're not that short-sighted. It just makes no sense given what we know about how things appear to be falling.

For the Pac 10 to make more money, they needed to go to 16. Well, they could have gone to 12 and picked up two Texas schools. But that would kind of make things weird with two schools way out of the way. Texas A&M apparently has travel concerns, and those wouldn't be eased if the only team within its state and any border state was Texas. But instead they get six schools...six in the central time zone who can be paired with two in the mountain time zone. This allows for games that can start at the beginning of the central prime time AND games that start toward the middle of the pacific prime time. Plus, they add Dallas, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Denver, Houston. They OWN west of the Missisippi.

The Big 10 on the other hand already has a cable network that is pretty successful. Getting Notre Dame would assure the teams of a big raise. Getting anyone else after that would dilute the product. KC would be nice, but it's a media market that is one after Salt Lake City. There's no reason to have 16 teams if the members are making more money with 12. The Pac 10 couldn't do it, so they had to go big. The Big 10, with Notre Dame, wouldn't have to do that. They would get every home in America with Notre Dame and they wouldn't have to share with anyone else.

But there's no way to get Notre Dame into the Big Ten without the threat of a consolidating move to 4-5 mega-conferences. Notre Dame doesn't gain enough in a 12 team Big Ten. That's been the hangup the hold time and the reason that a final decision hasn't been made. If it appears that the Big Ten is only going to invite one team (would likely be Mizzou if it wasn't Notre Dame), then Notre Dame is more than happy to remain in the Big East because there's no threat of the Big East falling down around them. In order for the Big Ten to land Notre Dame, it has to push some buttons to make significant dents in the Big East.

Andy Staples via Twitter:
It would be interesting if they offered Texas, ATM, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

Can't see that flying with the membership, just can't see them swallowing the two lower profile teams to get the big ones.

My opinion is about as valid as the blogospheres (aka "not very") but that's my gut, I can't see that creating anything except years of steady complaining from one of the most fervent conference fan bases in the country.

Historically, A&M has been closer to the SEC than the SWC/Big 12. Sure, there is the massive rivalry with Austin, but their coaches have more often than not either gone to SEC schools, or came from SEC schools. (Bear Bryant, Gene Stallings, Billy Gillespie, Jackie Sherrill, all off the top of my head). There is more of an SEC vibe in College Station than there is anywhere else in the Big 12.

And by the same token, the academic profile of Texas would lead me to believe they wouldn't have a big interest in the SEC, and the Texas coaches have made it known they don't like the idea of joining the SEC and dealing with they perceive as rampant dirty recruiting there. The Pac-10 seems like the best bet for Texas if the Big-12 implodes...

I don't think SEC will do anything, to be honest. They have a big contract and they have the most cohesive group of fans in the country. The rah-rah SEC shit won't work here. I know I don't much care for the rest of the Big 12 except to the extent it helps OU's teams on the field. I certainly wouldn't care about the SEC either. I think it would be a disaster for many schools that could get invited there.

Texas A&M would get into it though. I agree with cartman that they are more SEC than Big 12, and certainly more than the Pac 10.

I know A&M has been down for awhile, but I don't know that I would consider them tagalongs. The part about the four B12 teams was my own speculation, but if you are dipping a toe into the state of Texas (and who knows if the SEC has any interest in doing so), A&M is a pretty good choice (if Texas isn't willing).

Here is the latest from Michigan's Rival site:

If we're dealing in a foursome, I could see the SEC trying to take in Miami, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech before taking the four schools from the Big 12.

I'd wager they'd take Oklahoma and Texas any day of the week ahead of the other schools.

If Texas and Notre Dame are among the Big 10 invites in the end, that's really bad news for Nebraska.

Most of the info that I have come across indicates that Nebraska is a shoo-in to be invited to the Big Ten and that they may well get an offer to join for the 2011 season, with the rest of expansion to be sorted later.

I think Kansas is the most prominent school that is in danger of not having a seat when the music stops.

Yes, but most of that info is assuming that Notre Dame is staying out. If they come in along with Texas, that all gets reshuffled.

So, the Big10 got the Pac 10 to be the bad guys . And the Big10 will help out those poor schools that were abandoned.

Big10 wins again.

I am starting to think more and more that this was leaked by Texas, essentially to tell anyone else they're not going to leverage us by threatening to leave, because we can all leave everyone else in the cold and take five teams with us.

"what we know about how things appear"

Ha ha. So, nothing again? There are like 50+ scenarios out there. Nobody knows how things are falling, except for maybe a few conference king makers. Depending on which site you read the Big Ten is adding anyone from Nebraska to Virginia or Notre Dame and no one. But here's a possible scenario where the Big Ten does nothing or adds Notre Dame and quits:

-The Pac Ten does what they do.

-Notre Dame gets spooked and lets the Big Ten know that they are in.

-THe SEC decides to do nothing because what they really wanted to do was add Texas. Clemson adds nothing from a television perspective. Florida won't agree to add Miami because they don't want to play them every year. While Georgia and Florida might have a couple of million reasons each to add Georgia Tech and Florida State, a 14 team league doesn't really do all that much for anyone except cause you to split the pie two more ways.

-The ACC is thrilled to survive in tact. They stand pat.

-The Big East is simply trying to survive and have no ability to add anyone.

-The Big Ten does the math. Notre Dame gets them a lot of cable boxes or a maybe a revamped contract with some NBC exposure. They do the math and splitting the pie 12 ways gets them more than adding Nebraska and pick your three dwarves.

Point is, every team's rivals site thinks they know what is happening to their team, and nobody knows anything. Super conferences sound great but no one knows if they make a ton of sense financially.

Again, ticket sales and alumni contributions still drive athletic departments. TV may be gaining on those two, but it is still third. You can bet each school is doing that math before they cast their vote in their respective conference.

If this happens, so long Big 12. Without Texas and Texas A&M, the Big 12 is done for.

Kansas is definitely one of the schools that could be on the outside looking in especially if other teams are packaged together (OSU and Texas Tech). I still hold out hope that the Pac 10 and Big 12 can work something out.

I wouldn't particularly disagree with that take on it ... but I don't believe there are many SEC fans who would consider A&M "SEC enough" to be a member of the conference. And Oklahoma State? OMG, the outrage would be pretty intense.

I don't disagree that the fans won't like anyone. I don't see how they'd take in Miami though, they aren't SEC enough either. I'm thinking more good fans and Southern when you say "SEC-enough."

If it's strength of program, I'd beg to differ--especially on A&M. It's not like Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Missisippi State are any better (and really, not better than Oklahoma State). Auburn is probably traditionally about the same.

The SEC is a very strong conference, but I think it's mainly due to loyalty among fans to their teams and to their conference. I also think it's because the strong teams are very traditional (or is Florida) and are able to sustain that year-in, year-out (in part because of the weaker teams who are viewed as stronger because of they are part of the conference and are rarely so bad as to not be able to put up a few wins a year).

Difference being, those teams are in the SEC & Oklahoma State isn't. The whole "we can talk about 'em 'cause they're kinfolk but you better not say anything about 'em yourself" kind of deal.

Back in '07 when OkSt stayed close to UGA for a while (before Georgia won 35-14) you'd have thought the Dawgs had just lost to Furman by 3 TD's to hear the fans afterwards.

Call it arrogance, call it whatever, but there's a perception among a large percentage of SEC fans that a team like that (decent but not historically great & not from a conference they're familiar with beyond the big names) shouldn't even be on the field with any SEC team with a national profile (i.e. any team in the conference not from Mississippi, Nashville, or Lexington)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to stand up for Oklahoma State's program. They are historically terrible and have had a few (stress, a few) good years of late, and they were good in the late 1980s because of Thomas and Sanders. Other than that, their bad reputation is well-deserved in any part of the country.

So JiMGA, if Conference Armageddon goes down and the SEC was forced to add 4... who are their ideal 4 and what order do teams fall in?
-Texas (but it wants to go Big 10 or Pac-10 for academic/recruiting reasons)
-Oklahoma
-Florida State
-Clemson/Ga Tech (don't add new markets or a national profile, but each a traditional rival of a strong team)
-Miami (Florida hates them for whatever reason)
-Texas A&M (I'd actually put them higher. Fan base backlash, but adding a team in Texas with 60k+ enrollment is huge)
-Who's next?

Will the SEC just assume that if shit goes down they can wait it all out, then force Florida to swallow their pride and add the ACC foursome (none are a threat to be stolen by any other conference as far as I can tell). Or would they want to be proactive and go after OU/A&M with 2 of the ACC 4? What if the Pac-10 makes its move to 16 and then one (or more) of the ACC 4 turns them down?

One other question - if the Pac-10 actually puts out offers to 5 schools, can they require it to be a package deal or does each individual school have the option to accept/decline? It sounds like Colorado already has 1 foot out the door, could they accept and move to the Pac-10 before Texas commits to a direction?

Disagree. There's some idiots out there who are pretty ill-informed (the Frank the Tank post that someone put up is a prime example as he admitted he was a 'hack' after last night's news), but there's a pretty good concensus from most reliable media and other sources how things will fall and what teams will be the primary targets. The 'Notre Dame will be the only invite' scenario just doesn't hold water at all. If that's all they were going to do and it was so easy, they would have done that years ago. The only way Notre Dame is going is if the Big East is hit. It's really quite simple.

I'd also note that the Rivals writer at the Texas site who broke this info is very reliable and has some very good connections within the Texas program.

This is a tremendous reach, but if we are reaching for the SEC's ideal 4, I suspect access into North Carolina and Virginia would fall just below Texas. If the Big 10 somehow decided to take a big bite out of the ACC (say they add Notre Dame, and Notre Dame wants Boston College, Maryland, and UVA). If the SEC added UNC, Duke, NC State, and VPI -- that would probably be close to their ideal move.

I see both sides of this issue...the Pac 10 taking the 6 would prob. force the Big 10 to take Mizzou, but from what I hear my ASU would get grouped with all the big 12 south teams and I dont see that helping us athletically at all. Right now in basketball we are a top 3 program, and while were certainly down in football, i dont see a huge gap between ASU and a UofA or a Stanford at present...but drop them into a division with OU and UT, and the prospect of rising back up the ranking takes a big hit...they might cope, they might not, but that sounds like a huge blow to their winning ability.

Now mizzou, in the divisions ive seen the big 10 predicted to break into, would fare much better...much much better.

I've seen the arguments, but I just don't see how the Pac 10 expansion forces the Big Ten to do anything. Even with six new teams, the Pac 10 is not going to be making as much, per team, as the Big Ten teams.

Television dollars are driving expansion. As digamma articulated above, the Big Ten is probably near or at peak efficiency/value, while the Pac 10 and Big 12 are/were looking to catch up. Unless a new team or set of teams grows the Big Ten's pie, they have little reason to feed another mouth(s).

On a side note, it will be interesting to see what some of the bowl matchups look like if there is significant expansion (and we assume that bowls still exist) and we are left with only four BCS conferences.

I wonder how the old guards of the Pac 10 and Big Ten would feel if/when we see an Oklahoma vs Nebraska Rose Bowl? :)

Hmm ... just combining everything I've seen/heard/read with my own gut I'd say it's something like

1) Texas, cause that's money.

1b) {insert long pause here to indicate the gap in true desire to add anyone else}

2 & 3) Clemson & Ga Tech seem to be a package deal for some reason. Notice that you rarely if ever see a combination mentioned like Tech+Miami or Clemson+FSU, the Tigers & Jackets seem to always be paired together. My own guess is that UGA (and possibly SC) might like that notion and that they want them to be on board with the expansion.

4) FSU seems like the 4th team in the preference order but only because realistically if you do 3 then you gotta do 4. I don't sense any particular enthusiasm for adding them but I feel like they'd be the top pick from the remaining options.

The team that never gets mentioned which I personally think would actually be a pretty fair fit is West Virginia. I don't get any sense that they're even a remote consideration but I think they'd actually fit right in quicker than anyone farther west.

There was an article out, when this story had a little more heat and they were acting like the SEC would have to move to 16 in response to the Big Ten, that quoted an SEC insider as saying that their short list was Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson and WVU. I don't think I ever commented on it, because it seems like too much of a pipe dream for us.

Almost heaven, really ;)

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...s.html?sid=101

This is starting to get more interesting. Looks like there's maybe some smoke. The Pac 10 realizing they have to act fast, otherwise the crown jewel of their expansion plans might have already jumped ship. It also helps explain why Texas Tech...the political risk, while maybe not all real, is certainly high enough not to risk it.

MBBF--what do you think Texas going to the Big Ten does to Missouri? If they took Notre Dame and Texas who is the 14th team? I don't think they go to 16 if they get those two. If it's A&M, that's bad for the rest of us.

I'd say that Ga Tech, Clemson and FSU all fall into the same boat in terms of SEC expansion. They each have an in state rival that they play every year in the SEC. If that SEC team could bring them into a conference schedule it frees up a non-conference game, and adds a home game for those teams. That was my reference to a couple of million reasons for Florida and Georgia to support FSU and Ga Tech.

Miami is the odd ball here. While they arguably add a new television market, it's not clear they are a driver in the Miami market (or if that is a lucrative college football market). And Florida doesn't want to play them every year.

Have read the same thing about the Texas guy, but of course the source was another Rivals writer.

I haven't seen any "concensus" in the media, much less pretty good "concensus" or any reliable media sources.

And this morning we have a report that says the Washington AD says a full merger between the Pac Ten and Big 12 is on the table. So, you're still guessing at this point like everyone else.

The writer at the Texas Rivals site is a former AP writer for the Dallas Morning News. Only reason he left was that they stopped sending beat writers to road games, so he went to an internet portal that would allow him to do so. He's very credible and has a TON of connections.

The Washington AD is speaking out of his ass if he thinks that. There's no way in hell that all 12 B12 members and all of the P10 merge together. It's not going to happen.

This from ESPN's college football blog. I assume the "Tech problem" is its non-AAU status and the idea that teh Big 10 would have to take them in any deal to get Texas?

Is the meeting still tomorrow?