Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There's absolutely no way Mizzou lands in the Big East. Just makes no sense at all. Everything I've heard is that the Big East rumor was instigated through Texas to try to keep Mizzou fans in a panic and force them to stay in conference. It's not going to happen. Mizzou is going to have options in the SEC, B10, and possibly Pac-XX assuming Texas remains as boneheaded as they have been of late.

Saw this morning that Virginia Tech has again made it pretty clear they're not interested in moving to the SEC. The admins appear to be frustrated at the number of ways they have to say 'no' to dispel any movement rumors.

Va. Tech: We're not interested in the SEC | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Another article that provides a pretty accurate assessment in a single line of the Texas mentality in this whole situation......

Great Scott? A little, but realignment all comes back to Texas - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com

He (Larry Scott) saw an opportunity, and sat back and waited for it to present itself. But the opportunity was made not by Scott, but by DeLoss Dodds and the uniquely Texas world-view that whatever Texas wants, Texas should get by virtue of its Texas-hood.

[MacroGuru]

Per John Wilner, The Pac12 wants status Quo

BCS football: Realignment update (Pac-12 CEOs don’t want to expand) | College Hotline

Lots of conjecture here, but definitely a fun read...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

Gabe DeArmond said on radio here in KC that several people he talked to in the Rivals network expect OU to react 'within hours' of the A&M announcement to go to the SEC. Also said that if UT balks at the Pac-XX invite shortly after, OU, OSU, KU, and MU will be the invites.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's absolutely no way Mizzou lands in the Big East. Just makes no sense at all. Everything I've heard is that the Big East rumor was instigated through Texas to try to keep Mizzou fans in a panic and force them to stay in conference. It's not going to happen. Mizzou is going to have options in the SEC, B10, and possibly Pac-XX assuming Texas remains as boneheaded as they have been of late.

Saw this morning that Virginia Tech has again made it pretty clear they're not interested in moving to the SEC. The admins appear to be frustrated at the number of ways they have to say 'no' to dispel any movement rumors.

Va. Tech: We're not interested in the SEC | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Another article that provides a pretty accurate assessment in a single line of the Texas mentality in this whole situation......

Great Scott? A little, but realignment all comes back to Texas - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com

This pretty much guarentees Mizzou to the Big East.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

This pretty much guarentees Mizzou to the Big East.

Saw that Chipper tweeted late last night that UT and OU were in discussion to save the conference.

"Texas wants to hold the Big 12 together. Hard to believe, but true. In intense discussions with OU. May or may not work out."

1. That ain't happening. OU wants three legitimate candidates to bring the conference back to 12 strong programs and those teams just aren't available and wanting to join a conference in flames.

2. This tweet is much like what happened to MU last year when UT threw us under the bus as the problem. You can bet that this kind of talk is the setup to toss OU under that same bus.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Hmmm - the figures I've seen are that Texas gets $15M annually for the Longhorn Network. I'd be quite surprised if Texas is going to be pulling in $45M per in the Big-"12".

Late at night and I did my math wrong ... Was thinking $20 million for Longhorn Network, not $15. But the Big 12 has an unbalanced revenue model that guarantees UT, OU and A&M more many than the others. Texas gets about $25 million from the conference TV money, which puts the around $40 million.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some chatter from the Pac-XX area. Pretty amusing that the Pac-XX people have the same opinion of Chipper.........

Pac-12 Expansion: Oklahoma & Oklahoma State Could Be Enough To Break Texas - Pacific Takes

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If that is the case and Missouri would be willing to bypass an SEC payday for the sake of winning, you guys would be smarter to rebuild the Big 12.

If you want to dominate a league, being the anchor in a conference of Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and a handful of CUSA/MWC schools (Houston, Memphis, SMU, Air Force, and maybe a school in New Mexico and/or Nevada) would be the way to go. If the Big 12 leftovers add the right MWC teams, they would almost certainly keep their BCS bid.

It's both. I doubt a reconstituted Big 12 could keep its AQ bid or close to its TV contracts ... Maybe if you picked off TCU and Boise.

One notion floating around is that Texas is telling OU to hang tight and issue invites to Pitt, Louisville and possibly TCU.

Honestly, Mizzou feels like the Big East is its safety conference ... The attitude is we will end up in a good place, so don't worry.

I'm more worried than that. The SEC is a good pay day but it's a bad fit -- from football to softball and baseball, almost everything we are good at, the SEC is stronger than the B12. We are a perfect fit with the B1G, but I don't trust Delany or the conference ... They hung us out to dry last year. The PAC 12 would be rough. I don't know why OU would want to go ... The time difference and travel would be horrible.

Dropping to the Big East would also be rough ... The lower revenue and travel almost guarantees budget cuts and possibly losing a sport or two.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

It's both. I doubt a reconstituted Big 12 could keep its AQ bid or close to its TV contracts ... Maybe if you picked off TCU and Boise.

One notion floating around is that Texas is telling OU to hang tight and issue invites to Pitt, Louisville and possibly TCU.

Honestly, Mizzou feels like the Big East is its safety conference ... The attitude is we will end up in a good place, so don't worry.

I'm more worried than that. The SEC is a good pay day but it's a bad fit -- from football to softball and baseball, almost everything we are good at, the SEC is stronger than the B12. We are a perfect fit with the B1G, but I don't trust Delany or the conference ... They hung us out to dry last year. The PAC 12 would be rough. I don't know why OU would want to go ... The time difference and travel would be horrible.

Dropping to the Big East would also be rough ... The lower revenue and travel almost guarantees budget cuts and possibly losing a sport or two.

The talk of Texas trying to hold in OU is little more than PR to save face. This conference isn't going to survive.

The Pac-XX time difference argument is pretty significantly overblown.

-In football, 4-5 of the games would be at home. Out of the other 4-5 games on the road, only 1 would be in the Pacific Time Zone. The other 3-4 would be in our time zone or the Mountain Time Zone.

-In basketball, 9 of our conference games would be at home. Out of the other 9 road games, only four would be in the Pacific Time Zone. Maybe 1-2 would have a 9:30 start time.

So we're basically talking about a maximum of a couple late starting basketball games and a late football game. Not that big of an issue. Travel is also pretty overblown. The Pac-XX markets are generally in areas that are easier to fly to than other conferences. Much easier (and cheaper for MU fans) to fly to those markets than some other alternatives in SEC or B10.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If you essentially have eight 8-team divisions, each with a berth into their respective conference's title game, you're going to have a lot of games that mean something. Assume seven games are divisional, then four or five more either against cross-divisional or at large opponents. Even if the cross-divisional don't count for standings, would there be that many more games that hold no value? This season, Alabama plays Kent State, North Texas, Georgia Southern. That's three games already that don't matter. Sub those out for games against real opponents, even if they won't be season-killers. As a casual football fan, I'd rather see games like that than games against DII cupcakes.

Just an FYI, but North Texas is a DI cupcake...

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The talk of Texas trying to hold in OU is little more than PR to save face. This conference isn't going to survive.

The Pac-XX time difference argument is pretty significantly overblown.

-In football, 4-5 of the games would be at home. Out of the other 4-5 games on the road, only 1 would be in the Pacific Time Zone. The other 3-4 would be in our time zone or the Mountain Time Zone.

-In basketball, 9 of our conference games would be at home. Out of the other 9 road games, only four would be in the Pacific Time Zone. Maybe 1-2 would have a 9:30 start time.

So we're basically talking about a maximum of a couple late starting basketball games and a late football game. Not that big of an issue. Travel is also pretty overblown. The Pac-XX markets are generally in areas that are easier to fly to than other conferences. Much easier (and cheaper for MU fans) to fly to those markets than some other alternatives in SEC or B10.

I buy that to a certain degree. But the PAC 16 won't want a UCLA at Missouri game starting at 5pm PT,so you're probably looking at some 8-9 pm start times for basketball. Football will have some issues ... the first time Washington travels to Columbia for a 9pm fooball game so it will be in Pacific prime time, the alumni will go crazy.

Just like the Big East, I envision a honeymoon. But at some point the PAC 16 title game or basketball tournament will have to be in OKC or KC, and good luck with that.

Interesting that the PAC 16 sentiment is MU to the SEC. That talk really seems to be cooling.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Just an FYI, but North Texas is a DI cupcake...

Not under MY plan they're not.

[RainMaker]

I still don't see the lure of these superconferences. It waters down rivalries in place. Makes a large portion of the conference irrelevant.

[cuervo72]

Honest question...how many college rivalries are really important?

[RainMaker]

It doesn't have to be a hardcore rivalry though. Is there more intrigue from a fanbase to watch Texas play Washington State or Baylor? I do think there is some positive element to playing other teams in your region. You are likely to know more alumni from other schools and have more intrigue.

I'd consider myself a Northwestern fan and have much more interest in them playing a school like Wisconsin or Michigan State as opposed to Boston College or Vanderbilt.

[bronconick]

Man, don't say that rivalries don't matter around hardcore SEC fans. They're already getting upset over getting Texas A&M and losing the yearly LSU-Florida or Alabama-Tennessee games because of expansion. They're going to be really pissed if #14 is a team like Missouri or Virginia Tech that no one has any bitter anger towards. At least A&M makes Arkansas a little happy.

The ACC and Big Ten did rivalries wrong with splitting Miami/FSU and Michigan/Ohio State, the BigXII did okay with OU-Texas but killed Nebraska-OU and eventually caused them to want out as a result.

If they're going to make giant leagues, the least they can do is drop the last pretense of being about academics or amateurism and add a game or two to the season so no more rivalries get ruined so conferences can stretch halfway across the country for an extra bit of $$.

[Young Drachma]

I get the NFL argument that says having TCU in an eastern league doesn't matter. That rivalries develop over time and such alike. But on the same token, it depends on what they're playing for. If they're playing for all of the marbles, it's cool. If not, it's just a mishmash of teams participating for no good reason.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Man, don't say that rivalries don't matter around hardcore SEC fans. They're already getting upset over getting Texas A&M and losing the yearly LSU-Florida or Alabama-Tennessee games because of expansion. They're going to be really pissed if #14 is a team like Missouri or Virginia Tech that no one has any bitter anger towards. At least A&M makes Arkansas a little happy.

The ACC and Big Ten did rivalries wrong with splitting Miami/FSU and Michigan/Ohio State, the BigXII did okay with OU-Texas but killed Nebraska-OU and eventually caused them to want out as a result.

If they're going to make giant leagues, the least they can do is drop the last pretense of being about academics or amateurism and add a game or two to the season so no more rivalries get ruined so conferences can stretch halfway across the country for an extra bit of $$.

I'll grant that that could be said about some of the rivalries, like the ones you mention. I wonder though about any against teams like UK, Vandy, Miss St. though, or the newcomers (well, 20 years ago) SC and Arkansas.

And many others have already been diluted or killed anyway. What tradition is there in the Big East? Growing up in PA, I was used to PSU games against Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame. When they moved to the Big 10, not so much.

Re: Northwestern: I don't think there's been much talk of moving them out of the Big 10, at least.

TCU to the Big East doesn't make much sense to me either. Which is why if all this shuffling is going to happen (and it seems that it is inevitable), might as well get together over it and find a reasonable solution that keeps both rivalries AND geography in mind, rather than having conference heads and ADs independently going every which way but loose.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Honest question...how many college rivalries are really important?

In the SEC I'd say most of them, at least in football. That tends to happen when you play each other regularly for a very long time. Basketball (using UT as an example) there's Kentucky, Florida, Vandy, and to lesser extent UGA & Alabama. For UGA, it's Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee and that's about it as far as I can tell.
There's definitely still a noticeable gap in the interest level between the traditional members of the conference vs Arkansas, doesn't have so much to do with them personally (far as I can tell) as it does with them simply not being a considered "an SEC team" yet.

In the ACC, everybody likes to beat FSU when they can, close to the same can be said for Miami I think. Otherwise, honestly, I've got no heightened interest when GT plays anybody else in the conference (except as it might concern the standings), Clemson would be the closest thing I think. Basketball is a different animal altogether, everybody loves the chance to beat UNC & Duke, at different times I think there's a sense of a rivalry of sorts with different teams (I'd say definitely Maryland in the past & Clemson more recently for GT), something I figure happens with different teams for most teams.

[Ksyrup]

Everyone thinks their rivalry games are important.

[Ksyrup]

The only true national rivalries are ones that matter because both teams are perennial BCS possibilities. UF/FSU was a huge rivalry in the 90s for that reason. Now, that game doesn't matter much to anyone outside of Florida. Same with UM/OSU - that game meant more to others when one of the teams wasn't a doormat.

Basically, nearly all rivalries are geography-based (with a few exceptions, like USC/ND, but frankly, that game is a big deal because the media says it is, not because it actually is) and matter to the people in those areas, and whether they are any bigger depends on whether the game annually has any national implications.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Everyone thinks their rivalry games are important.

Y'know, I'm not entirely sure what point(s) you were looking to make there but I believe you're actually onto something meaningful (whether it's the same thing you actually intended I honestly can't tell).

Where there's a sense of rivalry - regardless of degree - that game is more interesting than one you feel no connection to beyond it being "opponent X". I believe that, in part, accounts for why I've yet to run into any regular SEC fan who actually wants A&M/Mizzou in the conference at all. There's simply no connection there.

At least with the games against Little Sisters of the Poor you can kind of see a purpose (an easy win + tune up time + another gate), here there seems to be nothing happening so much as the diminishing of a regional identity. From the fan's perspective I think you'd see a lot better reaction someone like Clemson (Univ of SC officials notwithstanding) than the candidates that are actually being talked about.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Man, don't say that rivalries don't matter around hardcore SEC fans. They're already getting upset over getting Texas A&M and losing the yearly LSU-Florida or Alabama-Tennessee games because of expansion. They're going to be really pissed if #14 is a team like Missouri or Virginia Tech that no one has any bitter anger towards. At least A&M makes Arkansas a little happy.

The ACC and Big Ten did rivalries wrong with splitting Miami/FSU and Michigan/Ohio State, the BigXII did okay with OU-Texas but killed Nebraska-OU and eventually caused them to want out as a result.

If they're going to make giant leagues, the least they can do is drop the last pretense of being about academics or amateurism and add a game or two to the season so no more rivalries get ruined so conferences can stretch halfway across the country for an extra bit of $$.

Michigan and Ohio State still play every year and they have the chance for a rematch in the title game, to me that's not an example of doing rivalries wrong.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In the ACC, everybody likes to beat FSU when they can, close to the same can be said for Miami I think. Otherwise, honestly, I've got no heightened interest when GT plays anybody else in the conference (except as it might concern the standings), Clemson would be the closest thing I think. Basketball is a different animal altogether, everybody loves the chance to beat UNC & Duke, at different times I think there's a sense of a rivalry of sorts with different teams (I'd say definitely Maryland in the past & Clemson more recently for GT), something I figure happens with different teams for most teams.

The ACC strikes me like that as well. The teams have been there forever, but other than FSU, VT and Miami - all newcomers who are more targets than rivals - everyone else is a big mash of mediocre. I'm in the area and I *try* to get some enthusiasm for Maryland and the ACC, but I have a darned hard time actually getting any. I actually root harder against certain teams in SEC matchups (or generally just against SEC teams ).

I agree basketball is different, especially re: UNC/Duke.

[JPhillips]

If the rivalries are so important teams could always stop scheduling two or three cupcakes each year.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If the rivalries are so important teams could always stop scheduling two or three cupcakes each year.

And if playing more games would eat into school / test time (as is claimed for a playoff), they could always go back to 10 game schedules from the 12 they've migrated to over the last decade or so (and 13 for those who play a conference championship).

Avoiding hypocrisy is not exactly a key goal for NCAA sports.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If the rivalries are so important teams could always stop scheduling two or three cupcakes each year.

As I mentioned, those cupcake games at least serve some identifiable purpose.
Vandy at Missouri in October or Kentucky at Texas A&M in November are less justifiable afaic.

[albionmoonlight]

Basically, conferences need to (or have convinced themselves that they need to) grow to survive--mainly by poaching the big media market teams from other conferences, without regard to anything other than money/markets. The general mentality seems to be that if you are not growing, then you are going to be left out in the cold and/or robbed overnight by another conference.

Whether that is true or not, it is the reality of how everyone is operating. Which leads to Jon's point--we will end up with 4 or 5 mega conferences that have no real identity because they lack sensible history and/or geography.

A UNC/Wake Forest game or a Texas A&M/Baylor game has no real point to it in terms of national implications. But it is still a fun and "meaningful" game because a lot of the alumni live and work together and get to talk some smack about it. It is entertaining to a small segment of people because it does make some historical and geographic sense. There's some personality to those matchups. Some in-state quirkyness to them.

Replacing those with UNC/Syracuse or A&M/Kentucky means that the games will still not have national implications. But will also have a "who cares" factor from the local side. They will be pointless in every sense of the word, other than as a side effect of the creation of mega-conferences.

Basically, in College Football as in business, it seems that growing to the point that you lose any sense of what makes you unique is the way to survive. So we will end up with four 16-team Wal-Mart conferences. They make more money, and we are less entertained. Sigh.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

If the ACC had not been poaching teams (Miami, Va. Tech, FSU, etc.), it would probably have dissolved by now or be out of the BCS mix. So poaching has been the "right" play in terms of the very survival of the conference.

But, from the perspective of someone in the heart of ACC country, it is a less interesting and less sensible conference than it was before the poaching.

Become boring or die.

[molson]

I don't understand why Texas needs to tie itself to Washington St, or Purdue. Why do the top halves of these apparently inevitable "mega-conferences" need the bottom half? I can see a bunch of heavyweights tying together. But not filling out a conferences for the sake of being really big. How much TV money would Texas get in a Pac-16 v. how much would they get if they just tied themselves to Oklahoma? Are they worth so much more because they're guaranteed to play Oregon St. every 3 years?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If the rivalries are so important teams could always stop scheduling two or three cupcakes each year.

Off the top of my head, Iowa seems to manage to play Iowa State every year

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The only true national rivalries are ones that matter because both teams are perennial BCS possibilities. UF/FSU was a huge rivalry in the 90s for that reason. Now, that game doesn't matter much to anyone outside of Florida. Same with UM/OSU - that game meant more to others when one of the teams wasn't a doormat.

Basically, nearly all rivalries are geography-based (with a few exceptions, like USC/ND, but frankly, that game is a big deal because the media says it is, not because it actually is) and matter to the people in those areas, and whether they are any bigger depends on whether the game annually has any national implications.

Yes, but are we looking to preserve national rivalries only? I would argue that there's a lot of value to the KU-KSU-Mizzou triangle where they all don't really like each other.

Like you said, those national rivalries are only temporary because they require sustained dominance and equality and those rarely happen for very long.

Or maybe I missed your point entirely.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Tables have turned. OU's now the ones making the threats........

OU coach Bob Stoops hints OU-Texas game might be casualty of conference realignment | NewsOK.com

[Radii]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If the ACC had not been poaching teams (Miami, Va. Tech, FSU, etc.), it would probably have dissolved by now or be out of the BCS mix. So poaching has been the "right" play in terms of the very survival of the conference.

But, from the perspective of someone in the heart of ACC country, it is a less interesting and less sensible conference than it was before the poaching.

Become boring or die.

Marmel posted something about the big east basketball tournament earlier in the thread and how its the best tournament and, fuck, I can't even be bothered to argue, but I can be pretty damn pissed off about it, b/c the reason its not the ACC anymore is the 12 teams, the added day where no one shows up b/c who the hell wants to watch miami play virginia tech? Where the best arguments arent about how many final four contenders the ACC has but about whether Gary Williams and Seth Greenburg are gonna get screwed out of 12 seeds they so richly deserve.

Are the gains made in football worth watering down and basically destroying what was without question the best college basketball conference? You say that the conference wouldn't have survived w/o the poaching and expansion, and I'm still not sure its worth it.

With that said, I'm afk because I need to go yell at some kids to get off my lawn.

[Ksyrup]

No, I think you and Jon and Albion got my point precisely, which was in response to a question (cuervo's?) of what rivalries are really important, and that suggested to me the only ones worth preserving were the "big ones." And to that, I say - they're big where you live. I'd rather watch ballet than KU/KSU, but to some people, that game means everything because it's bragging rights over family, the guy in the cubicle next to you, your GF, etc. It's almost entirely about geography. And anything that breaks apart geographical conferences to get to an optimum money-making configuration seems to create more long-term harm than good, because the only rivalries you can foster out of that scenario is when a BCS berth is on the line. When A&M is 5th in the West and Kentucky is 6th in the East, who the hell cares? But when UT and UK are both fighting to stay out of the cellar, that game still matters a great deal to a hell of a lot of people.

[dawgfan]

The latest Wilner blog post about Pac-12 expansion/Big-"12" implosion has already been linked, but a few key points:

The money is better for Texas in the Pac:

As noted on the Hotline recently, and confirmed by sources in the media-rights industry, there is more money for Texas in the Pac-16 than in the Big 12 or as an Independent — perhaps not in the first few years, but certainly once the league’s TV network(s) ramps up distribution and advertising.

Also, interesting to note no mention of Texas to the ACC:

Sources said the implosion of the Big 12 would leave the Longhorns with only two choices: the Pac-12, or independence.

And as has been pointed out many times, independence is a tough road for Texas - what to do with all their other sports?

Another interesting note - truth, or posturing for negotiating purposes?

And yes, in all likelihood the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State even if Texas were off the table, multiple sources said.

I have to think this is mostly a bluff. I really don't see the Pac being OK with expanding to 14, as that would make for a very awkward split. And I'm not sure there are two more teams other than the Texas duo that make sense financially. Maybe Mizzou & Kansas, but it seems like Mizzou is focused on the SEC, and I'd be a little surprised if the SEC can't offer Mizzou more money once they are able to renegotiate their TV deals.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

A UNC/Wake Forest game or a Texas A&M/Baylor game has no real point to it in terms of national implications. But it is still a fun and "meaningful" game because a lot of the alumni live and work together and get to talk some smack about it. It is entertaining to a small segment of people because it does make some historical and geographic sense. There's some personality to those matchups. Some in-state quirkyness to them.

Admittedly, I've never really been exposed to this so I can't identify with it. I grew up in Philly, where you pretty much rooted for Penn State or didn't much follow college football. I went to school in Baltimore, at a school with no major programs. I live in Maryland, but hardly in an area where there are any rivalries (sure, we may get a stray WVU grad here or there, and I guess there's the woman from Ohio). I work in south-central PA in a building where I don't even know if most folks even *went* to college. Or if they did they went to East Stroud, Gettysburg, etc.

In DC, maybe there is some Maryland/VT/Virginia overlap I guess. But I don't see it (and heck, I don't really even hear it on the radio).

[Young Drachma]

Why even have conferences at all at this point, I wonder.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Admittedly, I've never really been exposed to this so I can't identify with it. I grew up in Philly, where you pretty much rooted for Penn State or didn't much follow college football. I went to school in Baltimore, at a school with no major programs. I live in Maryland, but hardly in an area where there are any rivalries (sure, we may get a stray WVU grad here or there, and I guess there's the woman from Ohio). I work in south-central PA in a building where I don't even know if most folks even *went* to college. Or if they did they went to East Stroud, Gettysburg, etc.

In DC, maybe there is some Maryland/VT/Virginia overlap I guess. But I don't see it (and heck, I don't really even hear it on the radio).

I came here as an outsider, so I have a sense of it from studying it. Having Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake all so close and all good enough in basketball leads to a real sense of backyard rivalry that long-time residents here take very seriously. They take football seriously, too, but not like elsewhere. Here, it is more like all of the teams (with the exception of NC State which sometimes can make it into the top 25) are consistently bad, so the games are still entertaining and generate smack talk.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And as has been pointed out many times, independence is a tough road for Texas - what to do with all their other sports?

How is that a binary solution set, though? Look at Notre Dame. They're independent in football, but members of a conference in their other sports.

For a BYU, sure - it's all or nothing. But for schools with the prestige level of ND/Texas, seems like it'd be possible to play both sides off the middle.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Radii

Marmel posted something about the big east basketball tournament earlier in the thread and how its the best tournament and, fuck, I can't even be bothered to argue, but I can be pretty damn pissed off about it, b/c the reason its not the ACC anymore is the 12 teams, the added day where no one shows up b/c who the hell wants to watch miami play virginia tech? Where the best arguments arent about how many final four contenders the ACC has but about whether Gary Williams and Seth Greenburg are gonna get screwed out of 12 seeds they so richly deserve.

Not sure I really follow your point since the BE tourney is now 16 teams, you have the added day, the champion might need to play for 5 straight days, and this year's was still one of the best ever.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

How is that a binary solution set, though? Look at Notre Dame. They're independent in football, but members of a conference in their other sports.

For a BYU, sure - it's all or nothing. But for schools with the prestige level of ND/Texas, seems like it'd be possible to play both sides off the middle.

Sure, but what conference would Texas park their other sports? Given how good they are in basketball and baseball, I have a hard time thinking they'd be OK with Conference USA, the Southland or Sun Belt conferences.

And BYU found a home that made some sense for their other sports, as did Notre Dame.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I have to think this is mostly a bluff. I really don't see the Pac being OK with expanding to 14, as that would make for a very awkward split. And I'm not sure there are two more teams other than the Texas duo that make sense financially. Maybe Mizzou & Kansas, but it seems like Mizzou is focused on the SEC, and I'd be a little surprised if the SEC can't offer Mizzou more money once they are able to renegotiate their TV deals.

It's certainly not a bluff. OU/OSU are out with or without UT. Also, the Pac-XX is expanding to 16, not 14. The debate is just who comes along. If OU/OSU only, then it'll be MU and KU. If UT decides to come along, then OU wants Mizzou while UT wants Tech. That's really the only hangup on the move at this point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sounds like the SEC may be scrambling a bit. They thought they might have some time to line up the other three schools. With the OU escalation, they've called an emergency meeting in Atlanta today to discuss the other three invites. Crazy stuff.

Here's the flight plan links if you want to do some plane watching today.

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.a...350&forum_id=5

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sure, but what conference would Texas park their other sports? Given how good they are in basketball and baseball, I have a hard time thinking they'd be OK with Conference USA, the Southland or Sun Belt conferences.

And BYU found a home that made some sense for their other sports, as did Notre Dame.

Why not be an all sports except football member of the Big East?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's certainly not a bluff. OU/OSU are out with or without UT. Also, the Pac-XX is expanding to 16, not 14. The debate is just who comes along. If OU/OSU only, then it'll be MU and KU. If UT decides to come along, then OU wants Mizzou while UT wants Tech. That's really the only hangup on the move at this point.

That's unclear in Wilner's blog. He doesn't mention any other schools as possibilities.

I do agree that the Pac is not going to expand to just 14 - if they expand, it is almost certainly to 16 to avoid the headaches of how to split divisions.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Why not be an all sports except football member of the Big East?

I suppose, depending on whether the Big East would invite them. The major argument against would be travel costs and time zone issues, but those might not be any worse than being in the East division of a Pac-16 where travel would be primarily between Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado & Utah with a few games in the Pacific Time zone mixed-in.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Why not be an all sports except football member of the Big East?

Why would the Big East do that? The travel costs without any financial reward would sink the conference. At least Notre Dame is in the footprint, and they were added to balance out the additions of West Virginia and Rutgers in 1995.

[Schmidty]

I think rivalries are more important to smaller schools and/or less successful programs than they are to powerhouse schools. For example, I'm a big Western Michigan University fan, and since they aren't a very successful program, the Central Michigan game is as important as the entire success or failure of the season. Also, during the years that MSU was horrible ('00-'07), winning or losing against U-M was bigger than the season, but the rivalry wasn't really that big of a deal to U-M fans because their program was a powerhouse. Now that MSU is much better, the fact that they've beaten U-M three straight years isn't as important as their record at the end of the season.

I guess my point is this: If your program is a success, rivalries don't matter nearly as much as if your program is mediocre or crappy.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I guess my point is this: If your program is a success, rivalries don't matter nearly as much as if your program is mediocre or crappy.

This.

It wasn't until Oregon got good that Husky fans even thought of them as a rival, whereas Washington had always been rival 1a for Oregon, if not 1.