Yeah, that's the first thing I've read where I really question Larry Scott - if you want Oklahoma, you need to make it easy on them and bring along Oklahoma State. Pissing off billionaires that own a school is not smart...

The OSU thing doesn't make sense in the story. They offered Oklahoma State. Then Texas A&M declined. So where is the getting rid of Oklahoma State part? It seems odd that they would offer OU and OSU, get regent's meetings scheduled, and then rescind OSU's offer.

Yeah- that sounds fishy to me. I think he's got to have it backwards. It makes a lot more sense for Kansas to have Texas A&M's spot and Utah left out in the cold

SI

Who's your dog in this fight? (I'm just curious what fanbase is pissed about this).

Unless that's one strangely worded contract, that's one of the more laughable claims I can ever recall hearing anyone make.

Agreed. This sounds like revisionist history by Chip to try to make himself look better.

Just to end the nonsense about Arkansas and the Texas 10:

A statement from our athletic director, Jeff Long.

“In recent weeks and months there has been much national dialogue regarding conference affiliation in intercollegiate athletics. In the course of that dialogue some have suggested that the University of Arkansas was an institution that may be pursued by other conferences. From the beginning, we have been very clear that the University of Arkansas is a proud member of the Southeastern Conference and has no interest in joining another conference. Chancellor Gearhart has been unwavering in his support of our institution’s continued membership in the SEC. Recent events have not in any way altered our commitment or desire to remain a member of what we believe is the strongest conference in the nation.”

/end

BYU, I think

SI

There will be more laughable claims made by CU and NU before it is through. And a long court case tying up the money as long as possible. Then after burning through money, it will be paid out.

To be fair, everyone's put out a lot of press releases over the past couple of weeks that involved lying through everyone's teeth. The bigger reason is that it has never made any sense for Arkansas to leave where they're at so why would they.

SI

BYU.....

Utah has always been the annoying little brother...they have a few good years and they get the invite...

I know BYU's status as a private, church owned school would screw them with the PAC-10, but you get a better market (Utah doesn't necessarily bring the SLC market), larger fan base that travels amazingly well (Not to mention the pockets of Mormons throughout the U.S.)

If the Big 12 was to expand, BYU would be a no-brainer. I think BYU was pretty much going to be in, except Baylor managed to force their way in and the rest is history (the huge WAC followed by the MWC).

Will the BYU-Utah Holy War game end? It doesn't seem to take away from Florida-Florida State or any other non-conference rivalry games.

Point is:

ain't happenin'

I don't think it ends...but the meaning behind it goes away...it's an OOC game for us now...and turns into a beat a BCS conference team now....Not, hey this is our last game of the season (Our college career for seniors), winning this determines who gets the championship (most of the time) or a better bowl game and everyone plays balls out.

Honestly, the Holy War just lost it's luster for a ton of people...and as far as I am concerned. I hope to hell Utah loses every single game they play in the PAC

One of our beat writer summed it up

"It's a day BYU supporters wish would never have arrived, but it's here. BYU will continue to occupy its place among the best schools and athletic programs in the country, but will do so in a way that is deemed by some to be "secondary" to an instate rival that attracts fewer fans, TV viewers and radio listeners, and boasts less national appeal.

From a competitive standpoint, the WAC and then MWC's most athletically consistent and dominant program has been bypassed for a team which boasts considerable recent success (national championship basketball game, two BCS bowl games), but somewhat less of an across-the-board championship pedigree."

I think BYU-Utah could actually be more relevant now in terms of the fans. It used to mean something like a championship. Now all it means is hate...and that is maybe the strongest emotion. I think I've heard from some older OU fans that OU and Texas used to be more bitter rivals, because there was never, ever an excuse to root for the other team. Now some people (but certainly not all, and I never would) will even pull for Texas in a bowl game because of conference affiliation.

Oklahoma State was always part of the plan, not sure what Chip was smoking. I also disagree with calling Colorado a loser. They leave a sinking ship conference and get into a better spot in Pac 10. They will make more revenue than they were in the big 12, have more of a voice and be in a stable conference for the next decade.

The only negative is the fee, which it sounds like will be reduced (if not eliminated) from the original numbers and the Pac-10 has already agreed to help them out.

Even knowing what we do right now, I'm pretty sure neither the Pac-10 or Colorado would undo the move if they could. Getting the Pac-10 the Denver market and Colorado a stable home without being completely beholden to Texas (just ask KU, Kansas State and Missouri how great they feel about the next 5 years) is good enough to make this a solid move for all.

Exactly. I think the Oklahoma State getting dumped part of the story is B.S.

I've posted my thoughts on the invitation order for the major conferences:

* College Conference Realignment, Part IV*by*Football Frontier

FWIW, Oklahoma State does not measure well, except for its recent success on the field based solely on the recent investment by one billionaire in its athletic programs.

That helps boost it ahead of Texas Tech, but still not terribly valuable in a conference switch. The Big XII's problem is that it has more low-end BCS programs than any other conference. Which is not meant to be an insult, it's more a reflection of geography and the way the Big 8 expanded than anything else.

This is making the rounds from a few places as what the Pac 12 divisions will end up being:


Seems even as of now but a lot of it depends on Harbaugh staying at Stanford long term (doubt it) and Sark continuing to bring back UW (much more likely)

Then again, the south looks wide open if these sanctions hit USC like I think they will.

Also, where is the Pac 12 Title Game going to be? I assume at the Cards stadium or the Rose Bowl, but they are limited as far as that goes.

The first legal bomb will have to come from NU and CU. The revenue from the NCAA and TV contracts is distributed from the conference, and the Big 12 has stated CU and NU won't see dime until the 80% threshold has been met. I think there is a reasonable chance that both schools bluff and just walk away.

The real battle will be over Nebraska's second year. The Big 12 bylaws state that you forfeit money from your final two years in the conference. Since Nebraksa only plans to stay for one, the Big 12 will try to recoup money Nebraska has already been paid for 2009-10.

I've also seen those divisions from a few places including the Colorado's AD's office as a source. Makes sense geographically, but I imagine some of the north schools wouldn't be so happy about them.

Hey, by the way, who is the heavyweight we're adding to the North to keep Texas in the Big 12? :D

Based on the last two weeks, the words no fans want to hear from their university: "We're proud members of the Conference."

I would say whoever the hell ponied up all that TV money is the heavyweight.

And we didn't need to hear it from our university to know we aren't going anywhere. It would be tremendously stupid, and pretty much anyone can see that. I mean, I get that you're busting my balls here, but is there some case of a team saying that publically and then bolting for another conference recently?

"We like the Big 12. We're not looking to leave. We're not mad at anybody. We're not upset about anything."
- Tom Osborne, Nebraska Athletics Director
June 2, 2010

:D I didn't follow this whole thing until it started to actually happen, so I hadn't heard stuff from that long ago.

Difference is there are obvious reasons for them to leave. It would be demonstrably stupid for us to do so. Another possible difference is that this was a voluntarily published press release. Was Tom Osborne's quote a response to a question on the spot, or put out on his own, unprompted?

Son of a.....

I just got to thinking, you know how big of a in state recruiting hit BYU will take against Utah now in regards to this...HOLY SHIT!

OMG....I don't know if am going to be a sane man tonight...between fighting with the soon to be ex and this...I am going fucking insane today.

I really want to be in a league with this setup, or do a dynasty with this setup, or something. Any recommendations?

Heard someone on the radio yesterday (sorry was driving and only caught the tail end, but he was on Cowherd so it should be easy to figure out who and at least it was a national broadcast) but basically his story was that the whole PAC16 was a done deal until ESPN/ABC stepped in and made the money up to Texas et. al.

Supposedly ESPN didnt want to lose the Big 12 which it has rights to to a PAC conference that Fox has rights to....

Didnt get all the details but an interesting story.

That is huge because now Utah can play the BCS card which will likely sway a lot of kids on the fence, plus they gain more inroads into talent rich California. Definitely an advantage short term, but if they become a doormat in the Pac-10 that will change.

The sad thing is, right now I see them as the second best in that division behind SC.

There is also talk that things may change with the Big 12 and if they can coax one of the teams that left back (read Nebraska) that may open up a chance for BYU to go there. I still don't think all the dominoes have fallen here.

Does it make sense geographically? SLC and Boulder are both north of the Bay Area, and besides - splitting up the California schools? UCLA and Cal in different divisions?

I'm having a hard time believing that Scott was so desperate to land Colorado that he promised them a South division with the L.A. schools. Hey Buffs, guess what - pretty much every Pac-10 team has a lot of alums in SoCal - get in line!

Either way, the PNW schools lose their annual games in L.A., and in a North/South split they either drop down to games every other year in L.A. (if the conference opts for 8 games) or 2 every 3 years if they opt for 9 games.

The details are this - ESPN/ABC agreed to not change the money in their existing deal with the Big-12 even though the conference lost Nebraska and Colorado and will no longer have a Championship game. That means that the money that was being split among 12 teams is now split among 10 teams.

Utah is good, but they're not better than Oregon and Oregon State. And it remains to be seen if they'll be as good as a rising Stanford and Washington, or Cal for that matter.

Why would Nebraska even think for one second about going back?

Also, I see little reason to believe that the TV partners for the Big-12 are going to give the conference more money if they add BYU and another team - they're already overpaying by not reducing their payouts despite the Big-12 losing Nebraska, the Denver market and the Big-12 championship game.

Not happening.

Uh, because the Big Ten added Nebraska?

Makes a reasonable amount of sense to me, leaves more airtime for Texas/OU/whoever else is playing reasonably well at the time.

Losing Colorado is no big deal right now since they suck, but losing Nebraska hurts - that's a historically great program that's back on the upswing and has some name brand appeal nationally.

Does the Big10 look like this:

East-- PSU, OSU, Mich, MSU, Purdue, Ind
West- Wisc, Ill, NW, Iowa, Minn, Neb

Or this:

East-- OSU, Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, Ill
West-- PSU, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb

Or this:

East-- Mich, PSU, MSU, Pur, Ind, ILL
West-- OSU, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb

I sure hope it is not option 1.

Why not? It's the only one that makes sense. Moving the easternmost campus or the second easternmost campus to the western division is just nutty.

Didn't the commisioner say that competition would outweigh geography in deciding how the teams are broken up?

If that is the case, I would imagine that each division would get two of Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and Nebraska and then each would get one of Wisconsin and Iowa.

Because as an IU football fan, I want us to at least have a chance at winning more than one game in conference each season.

It will obviously be interesting to see if Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division.

Might as well just let Michigan and Ohio State pick teams playground style.

saw this on another board and thought some of you might like it

When breaking up by competition I'd be best to just split up Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska so there's 2 in each division and then go by rivalries and location. Those are the only 4 teams who have long term records of success.

Eh, that's not bad. Maybe trade Wisc and MSU?

All things considered, I think the split needs to be geographic. While the Big 12 had problems in having a balanced North and South, the ACC had problems balancing anything when they came up with the Atlantic/Coastal split. FSU and Miami fought for a split arrangement because neither wanted to be in the same division. Once that split occurred, then it was a matter of figuring out how best to split the teams to preserve the most rivalries the league had prior to expansion. The ACC also hoped that it would result in perhaps having them meet again in a marquee ACCCG matchup. As a result, they opted to put the ACCCG in Jacksonville and Tampa. Of course, Miami and FSU both fell down on the job the last several years and allowed teams like BC, GT, and Wake Forest to get into the game instead which has produced attendance nightmares for the conference. There's also the general ridicule the conference receives for not having a geographic alignment, though to be fair, the question that would be asked if a geographic split was done was how to split up the four North Carolina schools.

Also, non-geographic divisions would have the worry of teams fluctuating in quality over time. A "balanced" division setup in 2010 may not be a "balanced" setup in 2015 or 2020 and then what would be the point of the original split? At least with a geographic split, the local rivalries are able to take precedence and there isn't the concern over trying to preserve some mythical "balance" between divisions.

Uggh its beginning the asshattedness of the Utah fans thinking they are awesome now...unfortunately I didn't drink tonight...to much shit to do tomorrow...let me invade this thread tomorrow night with the drink...and I will talk shit.

If a fan of a non-BCS team writes something on a message board, can anyone else actually see it?

:p