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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Love it

It looks like Craig's List code for anonymous sex.

[tarcone]

I would love to see a PAC-whatever team play in Michigan or Iowa or Wisconsin or......... on January 1st. I imagine it would be a totally different story.

[bronconick]

Dude, I live in the midwest. No one wants to be here on January 1st.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Dude, I live in the midwest. No one wants to be here on January 1st.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I kinda like B1G. It's a lot better than Leaders and Legends.

I just can't imagine that within a normal thought-to-type process, it's anywhere natural to type B-1-G when you say "Big 10" in your head.

[sooner333]

When I type B1G it's to poke fun, but I guess some are serious.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I would love to see a PAC-whatever team play in Michigan or Iowa or Wisconsin or......... on January 1st. I imagine it would be a totally different story.

USC won't play Notre Dame in November in South Bend, I doubt anyone wants to go to the midwest. That's why most of the bowls are in warmer weather states.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What the media doesn't seem to understand is that there are only a handful of schools that make it worth while to expand a 12-school conference. Why is 16 a magic number all of a sudden? Why not 18, then? Why not 24? Because once you reach 14, you've pretty much lost all contact with schools in the other division.

Funny, one of the radio talk show hosts here in KC argued today that the perfect conference alignment was 18, since you could have two 9-team divisions with 8-game schedules, four non-con games and a title game. I'm baffled at why you would have a conference if you never played half the schools in the conference.

I think a 16-team conference can work but it hasn't so far. Of course, it's never been tried with top-tier teams, just also-rans. I'm not counting the current Big East configuration since it doesn't have a 16-team football conference.

I'm working under two assumptions as to why conferences are moving toward 16 teams. One is that I believe within the next five years all the major conferences will have a network of their own for 2nd or 3rd tier rights. Whether it's the BTN or Pac 12 model, it's all going to be about footprint and potential subscribers. That's why A&M is attractive to the SEC. A&M gives them leverage to get a potential SEC Network as broadly available as possible in Texas without the actual headache of having the Longhorns in the conference.

Second is that since everyone is working toward the first assumption, everybody wants to get their teams first. The Pac 12 is landlocked ... there are only so many BCS caliber schools they can grab, which makes the remaining Big 12 schools so valuable to them. It's simple supply and demand.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I still think the best solution is for the Big XII to hold at nine schools, maybe talk to TCU or Louisville/Cincinnati. That way, it's the Big East falling apart first, not the Big XII. But this would require Texas to behave differently.

The Big 12 can't remain at nine financially; their TV deals are nullified if they drop below 10 schools. And given the extracurricular activities of the last few weeks, what school in their right mind would join the Big 12?

Berry Trammel from the Daily Oklahoman was asked the Texas question today -- what would happen if Texas offered to save the Big 12, share revenue equally, scrap the LHN and help recruit a quality 10th member. I think his response was spot on -- Texas wouldn't be Texas if they did that, and no one trusts Texas either inside or outside the Big 12.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I wanted to comment on the journalism angle here, since I was a sportswriter for a long time, and I have a master's degree in journalism.

Back when I did this for a living, we recognized that everyone brings a slant to the job, but editors were prized for their independence. A lot of bravado about keeping publishers and advertisers out of the news room. We were taught to look at stories from as many angles as possible, and to be conscious that our job was not only to be fair, but to try and avoid bias in what we choose to report.

We read our Woodward and Bernstein, and admired how Ben Bradlee worked as an editor.

Now, imagine Nancy Grace on the Watergate story.

Today, journalism is slanted shit for the most part. Publishers do not stay out of the news room, and editors are hired to "shape" the public, not report a story. Fox mocks us with its "fair and balanced" slogan. CNN mocks us in many other ways. Newspapers are dying and online journalism is difficult to read, because no one can be trusted and everyone can publish.

You know we share a similar background ... I wanted to be a journalist all my life and achieved my dream of graduating from the world's first school of journalism at Missouri. After earning my degree, I walked away from broadcast journalism. I saw where the industry was heading and I couldn't do it. I already saw the networks breaking the very principles we were taught in school, and now those broken principles are what is being taught.

I don't think the biggest problem with journalism is that it is slanted; I think the biggest problem is that it is bad. When you had a 1/2 hour of news to fill for the early and late local news, you actually covered stories. Every story was important, and you had to be good or get out of the way.

Watch ESPN, CNN, Fox or your local news at noon on any given day and you should vomit. When did two people arguing about their opinions become news? When did pretty blondes blathering on about pointless trivia become news? There are fewer and fewer trained journalists on network news than ever before -- it's just talking heads and news readers that can't even read. Plus, everyone wants to be a star on TV, so now every broadcast is a talking head blathering their opinion. 25 years ago, the idea of news anchor pontificating or advocating a point was extraordinary; today it's the norm.

When I was a reporter, if I were doing a story on any topic, I had to cover both sides of the story. If I were doing a story about a state issue, I needed to have an interview with a Democrat and a Republican. How often do you ever see stories where they talk to people on multiple sides rather than just one?

Newspapers don't have the budgets to cover the news anymore, so they have let go of the best journalists and cover less news than ever. Even bastions of journalism in the past now ignore stories that hurt their bottom line or appeal to their demographics with one side of the story.

[kcchief19]

Damn that was long. How annoying.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Damn that was long. How annoying.

I actually found it interesting. I also come from the same background. Majored in journalism. I wanted to be a sportswriter. I was in Masters level courses when the OJ thing happened.

I saw where it was turning, had a good job doing something else and decided to leave the degree in the rear view mirror. Occasionally I regret the decision I made. Then I see some of the garbage media we have out there today and I'm happy I'm not a part of it.

What amazes me to this day is how intelligent people can think the media doesn't impact public opinion. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on or what type of stories you follow, the media is incredibly powerful.

[TroyF]

One more thing, there is no need to cover both sides anymore. Most all media takes a side and doesn't spend a lot of time trying to cover up or hide their bias. Honestly? This isn't the medias fault. They know exactly who they are catering to and what that person wants to hear.

You're a Republican and you don't like Rachel Maddow? Change the channel to Hannity and you'll get the opinion you are searching for. The opposite if your are a dem. Sadly, the TV wizards have this one right. There aren't a lot of people who care about getting both sides of the story, most people want THEIR side of the story.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I would love to see a PAC-whatever team play in Michigan or Iowa or Wisconsin or......... on January 1st. I imagine it would be a totally different story.

This is why I'd love a playoff system where teams get home field up to the Championship game. An SEC team having to come up and play in cold November/December weather. A place like Boise hosting an enormous game. So many cool scenarios.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I don't care what side of the aisle you are on or what type of stories you follow, the media is incredibly powerful.

But that isn't the media's fault, no more than the influence of advertising is the fault of marketers.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Did you seriously just use the editor of "Pravda on the Potomac" as an example of unbiased journalism?

That was a nickname given the Post at that time by people who wanted to pressure it into writing stories favoring the Republicans.

Bradlee's ethical standards as an editor were exceptional - as was expected at top newspapers at that time.

Newspapers are very different today from what we read in the '70s.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

You know we share a similar background ... I wanted to be a journalist all my life and achieved my dream of graduating from the world's first school of journalism at Missouri. After earning my degree, I walked away from broadcast journalism. I saw where the industry was heading and I couldn't do it. I already saw the networks breaking the very principles we were taught in school, and now those broken principles are what is being taught.

Pretty similar to my wife's story. Started out as broadcast at Mizzou- decided she didn't like broadcast before she even got about halfway in and changed to advertising (strategic comm or whatever it's called). I mean think about that for a second- advertising was less unsavory than broadcast. And she's left both behind and is an editor now for academic publications, which suits her much better anyways. She started out in broadcast and just couldn't stand it from the hypocrisy even in the classroom to the plastic-surgery-at-30 mentality to the hyper-competitive world where it was much more important to get it first than to get it right.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Funny, one of the radio talk show hosts here in KC argued today that the perfect conference alignment was 18, since you could have two 9-team divisions with 8-game schedules, four non-con games and a title game. I'm baffled at why you would have a conference if you never played half the schools in the conference.

It must be the baseball fan in me, but I think that sounds great. It'd be like the old AL/NL World Series, where neither league has played each other all year.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But that isn't the media's fault, no more than the influence of advertising is the fault of marketers.

With freedom comes responsibility. The media and marketers (and lawyers and congress-critters and music file sharers and ...) abuse their freedom on a regular basis.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Man, there is absolute chaos behind closed doors in the Big 9 right now. Everything from dissolving the conference to lawsuits to people walking out of meetings. This is going to be a hell of a book whenever someone decides to write about it.

[Ksyrup]

I hope it's Bruce Feldman. Ha!

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Man, there is absolute chaos behind closed doors in the Big 9 right now. Everything from dissolving the conference to lawsuits to people walking out of meetings. This is going to be a hell of a book whenever someone decides to write about it.

Plus don't forget that Boone Pickens is now saying the Big 12 is close to agreeing to equal revenue sharing and the conference will be saved.

If that were to happen, it would be absolutely stunning. After Texas and OU put a gun to the Big 12 last year and created more revenue disparity, if a year later the table flips over and gives a win to everybody else, it would be stunning.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Plus don't forget that Boone Pickens is now saying the Big 12 is close to agreeing to equal revenue sharing and the conference will be saved.

He did? I heard his interview on air last night, and all I heard was a guy saying that's a possible way to save the conference. Which is one guy's opinion, and I'm not sure I buy it due to trust issues anyway.

Texas wants what it can get. The only reason to keep the Big12 intact from Texas' perspective is to allow it continue reaping the benefits it now has. If it loses most of those benefits, what good is the Big 12 to Texas anymore?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

He did? I heard his interview on air last night, and all I heard was a guy saying that's a possible way to save the conference. Which is one guy's opinion, and I'm not sure I buy it due to trust issues anyway.

Texas wants what it can get. The only reason to keep the Big12 intact from Texas' perspective is to allow it continue reaping the benefits it now has. If it loses most of those benefits, what good is the Big 12 to Texas anymore?

Maybe Boone is planning on buying U of Texas.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Damn that was long. How annoying.

You need a copy editor!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

With freedom comes responsibility.

Their responsibility is to their shareholders first & foremost.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You need a copy editor!

I was channeling my inner Chief Rum.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It must be the baseball fan in me, but I think that sounds great. It'd be like the old AL/NL World Series, where neither league has played each other all year.

Since football has generally been regionally based, then why not just have 2 9 team conferences instead an 18 team conference that doesn't play each other?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Since football has generally been regionally based, then why not just have 2 9 team conferences instead an 18 team conference that doesn't play each other?

Conference Championship = $$$

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Since football has generally been regionally based, then why not just have 2 9 team conferences instead an 18 team conference that doesn't play each other?

I agree with you from a fan perspective, but money is obviously driving all of this. So here are the reasons I come up with:

1. The networks will supposedly pay more for the TV rights to a "super conference". I say this based on the comments made by the Pac 12 commissioner, whom essentially said that when they took the idea of 16 team conferences to the TV people they were overwhelmingly happy/excited about it. It also makes sense that if your conference controls a bigger portion of the market, you'd have a lot more leverage in negotiations.

2. Bigger conferences also have more power (and way more customers) when pushing their own network on cable providers. Just like the Big Ten fighting comcast and others to get the Big Ten network on basic cable packages in their states, every conference will make a huge amount of money with their own network some day, and suddenly adding more markets and more games for network content has become a priority for everyone.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

1. The networks will supposedly pay more for the TV rights to a "super conference". I say this based on the comments made by the Pac 12 commissioner, whom essentially said that when they took the idea of 16 team conferences to the TV people they were overwhelmingly happy/excited about it. It also makes sense that if your conference controls a bigger portion of the market, you'd have a lot more leverage in negotiations.

I've seen statements like that made elsewhere too, and I just don't understand it at all. In every other industry the thought of fewer suppliers would terrify a company. It's a pretty hard and fast equation that fewer suppliers means more expensive inventory; how does that not apply to this situation?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I've seen statements like that made elsewhere too, and I just don't understand it at all. In every other industry the thought of fewer suppliers would terrify a company. It's a pretty hard and fast equation that fewer suppliers means more expensive inventory; how does that not apply to this situation?

ESPN will turn right back around and charge the cable companies and advertisers an arm and a leg to carry the games. They don't care how much it costs.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

ESPN will turn right back around and charge the cable companies and advertisers an arm and a leg to carry the games. They don't care how much it costs.

But their most valuable games are airing on ABC. How do they pass that increase on?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

But their most valuable games are airing on ABC. How do they pass that increase on?

Fewer suppliers also means fewer contracts, so I imagine ESPN will end up paying similar amounts of money, simply to 4 conferences instead of 6-7.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

, every conference will make a huge amount of money with their own network some day

Unless you're the Mountain West, with a shitty network.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I've seen statements like that made elsewhere too, and I just don't understand it at all. In every other industry the thought of fewer suppliers would terrify a company. It's a pretty hard and fast equation that fewer suppliers means more expensive inventory; how does that not apply to this situation?

It seems counterintuitive to me, too. I think it's more to do with the fact that other networks are now aggressively competing with ESPN. NBC is trying to get their sports network going, Fox is putting games on FX. There are suddenly a bunch of cable channels that want content and football is one of the biggest things on TV.

In other words, NBC seems to be targeting the Big East. Maybe rather than try to outbid ESPN for multiple conferences - let's say the Big East and maybe the ACC or someone else down the road, they'd rather have the Big East expand so they have more content for their networks. And Fox/ESPN together definitely paid more once the Pac 12 expanded.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Plus don't forget that Boone Pickens is now saying the Big 12 is close to agreeing to equal revenue sharing and the conference will be saved.

If that were to happen, it would be absolutely stunning. After Texas and OU put a gun to the Big 12 last year and created more revenue disparity, if a year later the table flips over and gives a win to everybody else, it would be stunning.

There's a couple of big strings to that proposal.

1. The entire conference would first have to be dissolved is the option on the table. It would then be reformed from scratch.

2. The joining members would agree that they have to stay with the conference for 30-40 years with no exit option.

REALLY don't think that's going to happen. Too many strings on those plans.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Plus don't forget that Boone Pickens is now saying the Big 12 is close to agreeing to equal revenue sharing and the conference will be saved.

If that were to happen, it would be absolutely stunning. After Texas and OU put a gun to the Big 12 last year and created more revenue disparity, if a year later the table flips over and gives a win to everybody else, it would be stunning.

The revenue sharing became more equal, not less. Before the deal, only 57% was shared equally. After the deal 76% was shared equally. The entire $1.2 billion 2nd tier deal with Fox Sports was split equally among all teams.

Big 12 changes revenue-sharing policy

[Young Drachma]

I didn't go to J school, can I still make comments?

[Scarecrow]

I'm just waiting for Iowa St, Mizzou, UofK, K-State, and BYU join the Mountain West and rename it The Big XII Conference.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a couple of big strings to that proposal.

1. The entire conference would first have to be dissolved is the option on the table. It would then be reformed from scratch.

2. The joining members would agree that they have to stay with the conference for 30-40 years with no exit option.

REALLY don't think that's going to happen. Too many strings on those plans.

I'm just past the point of caring about the Big 12. Losing Nebraska, Colorado, and now A&M just makes me want to blow up the entire conference and let the wind scatter the programs to whatever conference will pick them up. I really hope they don't salvage it, but I felt the same way last year after this mess. I just don't care anymore about the Big 12 and welcome whatever changes that come.

[Solecismic]

We know what the networks want. Networks are willing to pay a premium price for live football games, because that's pretty much the only way to reach men under 40 in the days of DVRs. They are presumably still influenced by advertising, and making important life-long decisions (like car brand loyalty or beer brand loyalty).

Consolidating the product gives more power to those who already own media rights. So I understand why ESPN is willing to pay a premium for bigger conferences.

This premium, in turn, allows conference presidents to promise individual schools more money through expansion, when ordinarily expansion would not be worth while financially.

The question, to me, is at what point are conference games devalued by this process. When you expand, you lose traditional opponents. Your conference feels less like yours. You might even be less likely to watch the conference championship if your school is not involved.

If ratings decline because of expanded conferences and loss of tradition, then the networks cannot offer a premium for expansion. Then what? The advantage returns to the smaller conferences.

Time is on the side of the Big Ten and the ACC (which seems solid right now, and has many routes for potential expansion). If the SEC reaps great benefits from moving to 14, then find good new partners and expand. If not, great. So far, the Big Ten has made good decisions. It may be alluring to have Texas knocking at the door. It may be alluring to force Notre Dame's hand. I hope they don't compromise anything to make that happen.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The question, to me, is at what point are conference games devalued by this process. When you expand, you lose traditional opponents. Your conference feels less like yours. You might even be less likely to watch the conference championship if your school is not involved.

Depends on what your valuing traditional opponents as. The Big XII had a great traditional game between Nebraska and Oklahoma and they threw it away with the bathwater. The SEC has done a much better job at protecting a few rivalries that needed to be protected when they made the move to 12.

If you expand or realign your going to play some teams less no matter what the sport is. The 80s Mets were playing 18 games each against the Cubs and Cardinals, 12 against the Braves and 0 against the Fish. Now were lucky to get one trip to NY out of the Cubs and Cards.

Even pro football is the same thing. From 1950 to 2001, the Giants played the Cardinals twice a year, every year, except for 1982. In the 10 seasons since, they'll have played 6 times. Now it wasn't the most important game of the year for Giants fans, but it was a traditional game.

I'm not sold that 16 team conferences will work, but I do get the idea behind them. eight 8 team conferences than four 16s, but oh well. Smart division formatting and other scheduling tricks can protect enough historical matchups to make each team happy.

[Wolfpack]

Hm. I actually feel a bit more pessimistic about the ACC and seeing this isn't reassuring me. It pretty much means that the SEC is looking at an ACC school or two to pair up with TAMU to get to 14 (or with Missouri to get to 16, etc).

Adding another log to the fire: Pac-12 commish happy with 12...you know, like the SEC was happy with 12....

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

I'm just waiting for Iowa St, Mizzou, UofK, K-State, and BYU join the Mountain West and rename it The Big XII Conference.

If this happened would they keep their AO status?

[Swaggs]

Fun little time killer that let's you customize the conferences to see what they look like: NCAA Big 12 Realignment

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cartman

The revenue sharing became more equal, not less. Before the deal, only 57% was shared equally. After the deal 76% was shared equally. The entire $1.2 billion 2nd tier deal with Fox Sports was split equally among all teams.

Big 12 changes revenue-sharing policy

Four other factors:
1) Texas, OU and A&M demanded they get the $16 million in exit fees paid by Nebraska and Colorado divided among them. The other 7 schools did not share that revenue.
2) Those three schools are guaranteed minimum payouts from the TV contract. If the floor is not met, the other 7 schools must make sure those there schools get their payout from their share. That becomes more important if the conference loses the Fox deal and gets a new lower TV contract.
3) Instead of paying by appearance, the revenue that is not split equally are based on incentives. Texas gets more money for playing Ohio State on ABC than Missouri gets playing Miami Ohio on FSN. Previously, those paid the same.
4) The all-important guaranteed game for distribution by the school. That one game is essentially worth $15 million to Texas because it made the LHN possible. Missouri is giving their game away free online. K-State is trying to use theirs to sell online subscriptions. KU is selling theirs to the LHN, and Texas/ESPN will probably still make more money off that game than KU will.

With all those factors, the discrepancy between what Texas gets from "shared" revenues will dwarf everyone else. OU and A&M finally figured that out.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Hm. I actually feel a bit more pessimistic about the ACC and seeing this isn't reassuring me. It pretty much means that the SEC is looking at an ACC school or two to pair up with TAMU to get to 14 (or with Missouri to get to 16, etc).

Adding another log to the fire: Pac-12 commish happy with 12...you know, like the SEC was happy with 12....

That's Swofford for you. If Duke/Carolina have any honesty, they'll vote against that, since they haven't wanted anyone to join the ACC in decades. They should be thrilled if someone wants to leave.

[Swaggs]

[Toddzilla]

Billboard in Waco....

[MrBug708]

Saw this on another board about PAC-12 expansion from an "insider" so I wont say that this is gospel, just take it FWIW

Larry Scott has carte blanche and the votes needed for expansion. In fact, if the Big 12 blows up and the Pac expands, the vote will likely be unanimous, even if Arizona and Colorado are publicly wary right now (and even then it's a 10-2 vote in favor). That said, it all appears to be public posturing for travel, scheduling and recruiting sake and if Scott wants expansion, he's got it.

* Oklahoma has an invite should A&M get the nod for the SEC. OSU is tied to a bigger package only and is not an automatic invite with the Sooners. As much as they claim to be tied together, OU will not jeapordize it's future out of loyalty to OSU. Much like they areeed to be separated from Nebraska when the Big XII formed and would leave UT if they had to, OU realizes that OSU might only be a part of certain scenarios.

If OU comes and Texas balks, Mizzou and Kansas come into play. OSU and Tech are fillers, no matter how much money Boone Pickens throws at the situation. And it's likely that Tech is directly tied to UT. None of the Pac 12 presidents are relishing trips to Lubbock, but will take them for the Horns. Also, don't sleep on interest on a play for Rice as a 4th addition as this has been floated to UT. Despite Tech's big alumni presence in Dallas, the Houston market and Rice's academics are intrugiuing as a partner for Texas in the minds of many in the Pac 12 league office.

The Texas to the ACC stuff is nonsense and a negotiation ploy being floated out by UT in hopes of leverage against Larry Scott. Texas has ZERO right now and is deathly afraid of being Indy, because it will destroy their hoops and olympic sports programs. Right now, the Pac 12 is the only option being considered by the UT pres and DeLoss Dodds' job is now on the line for botching the negotiations last year and the subsequent early failure of the Longhorn Network.

Speaking of the Longhorn Network, it is no impediment as ESPN would gladly drop it (it's a loser financially that won't even give the amount of programming they first envisioned) in favor of more Pac 12-16 games in the current deal and UT would have to absorb some of the startup costs. The Pac would be willing to use some of the infrastructure of the LHN in a Pac Regional, but not the network itself as it still has to work with the rest of the model.

The people I've talked to have said that after Texas left Scott a bridesmaid last year renegging on a verbal deal, he did not panic and sees the writing on the wall anyways. So he took the tactic of not burning bridges and waiting for the eventual Big 12 armaggedon. The deal Texas made to stay was so outrageous that it infurated A&M and even caught allies OU and OSU off guard. Mizzou has been looking to get out for over a decade and UT being a "pig" only strenghtened their will. Basically everyone short of Baylor and Tech is disgusted with UT's enormous slice of the Big 12 pie and would like a better situation in terms of equality. Larry Scott now holds all of the cards, and even with Texas' cushy deal in the Big 12, Washington St currently stands to make more in long term media rights after 2012 than the mighty Horns.

The dream scenario for Larry Scott is Texas, Oklahoma, Mizzou and Kansas. Four huge schools with 2 big football and 2 big hoops traditions. 3 AAU members and 5 big new TV markets along with 3 other good, medium sized markets. That would be the ultimate for the league and at this point the golden ticket. That said, Mizzou badly wants to be in the Big 10, but views themselves as more SEC compatitable with less travel there too. The Pac 12 is a longshot, but trust me when I say that Mizzou has talked to Scott and KU would do anything to make it happen as they want to stay West.

[dawgfan]

Interesting, and almost certainly Pac-12 slanted. I find it really hard to believe that the Pac-12 is the only option for Texas - why wouldn't the Big "Ten" also be in play?