super-conferences

[Perchoutofwater]

I personally would love to see the Big 12 stay together. Losing Nebraska and Colorado is certainly not the end of the world. Those 2 should not be the death of a conference. Id like to see the 2 Oklahoma schools take Nebraska and Colorado place in the North :P, and the south add TCU and Houston. TCU is a power in football and baseball, Houston was once a power in football, and is on the way back up. You could have the 6 Texas schools in the South and the rest in the North. Can you imagine Texas and OU playing every October, and then a rematch for the Big12 title again in December. Think that would bring in much revenue and eyes to the confernce twice a year.

 

This is what I would really like to see. I'm not sure about Houston, I think the Big 12 could get a better program to come on board. The main reason I don't want Texas to go to the PAC 10 is because I don't want to have to stay up all night to keep track of who's doing what in their conference.

[myhousekey]

SEC commissioner Mike Slive was in College Station today and Orangebloods.com, the rivals site for Texas, is reporting

that the Texas A&M regents have the votes to join the SEC and could announce that move as early as next week.

Edited June 13, 2010 by myhousekey

[wildcat2334]

Gotta say, D-1 football might lose me if all this goes down. I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to care about who's "supposed" to care about beating who. And traditional, regional rivalries should matter. Seeing UT and USC vie for the Pac 10 title just will not hold any interest for me. I love the debates over which conference is strongest year to year and think these randomly assembled super conferences will ruin that.

 

Hell, why doesn't Florida, LSU, Bama, OSU, USC, V Tech, UT, OU, and a few others just form a super-duper conference? Then they'd have the whole freaking country covered in terms of TV. Oh, wait. We could just actually have a freaking play-off and then we could watch the 8 best teams from all over the country fight it out for top dog.

 

This is just freaking lame. I know of absolutely nobody around here who likes the ACC better now that it includes Miami, V Tech, and BC. V Tech at least makes sense because it rounded things out to an even number and is a natural rival to UVA. At some point, D-1 football's inclination to intentionally make the product worse (ie: refusing to provide a proper tourney and this petty and confusing land grab) will come back to haunt them.

 

eh, you will get over it - fast. Not in ACC country but as a hugh college football fan adding those teams made the ACC relevant in football - and as a west coast guy I certainly was more into ACC football. Miami, VT and BC are hugh additions imo

 

I think it is awesome and an important step towards a playoff as well as potentially shedding the NCAA as a whole. Not a hugh fan of conference championships, and I saw the Pac 16 wouldn't even necessarily have one- that being said a regular season or title game between Texas and USC?? are u kidding me - bring it on. The Big 12 as it is/was had only been around since what, '94 or so?

 

change happens.......as a Seahwaks fan I thought going from the AFC West to realigned NFC West would be brutal - it ended up not being that big of a deal

[Menudo]

eh, you will get over it - fast. Not in ACC country but as a hugh college football fan adding those teams made the ACC relevant in football - and as a west coast guy I certainly was more into ACC football. Miami, VT and BC are hugh additions imo

 

I think it is awesome and an important step towards a playoff as well as potentially shedding the NCAA as a whole. Not a hugh fan of conference championships, and I saw the Pac 16 wouldn't even necessarily have one- that being said a regular season or title game between Texas and USC?? are u kidding me - bring it on. The Big 12 as it is/was had only been around since what, '94 or so?

 

change happens.......as a Seahwaks fan I thought going from the AFC West to realigned NFC West would be brutal - it ended up not being that big of a deal

 

+1

 

I'm excited about the changes, and truly hope that it leads to a true playoff system ASAP.

[darin3]

The Big 12 as it is/was had only been around since what, '94 or so?

It was formed in 1994, but athletic competition didn't kick off until 1996. I remember stopping in Austin on my cross-country trip after graduating from college and buying the last "SWC Conference Champions" t-shirt at the stadium.

[detlef]

eh, you will get over it - fast. Not in ACC country but as a hugh college football fan adding those teams made the ACC relevant in football - and as a west coast guy I certainly was more into ACC football. Miami, VT and BC are hugh additions imo

 

I think it is awesome and an important step towards a playoff as well as potentially shedding the NCAA as a whole. Not a hugh fan of conference championships, and I saw the Pac 16 wouldn't even necessarily have one- that being said a regular season or title game between Texas and USC?? are u kidding me - bring it on. The Big 12 as it is/was had only been around since what, '94 or so?

 

change happens.......as a Seahwaks fan I thought going from the AFC West to realigned NFC West would be brutal - it ended up not being that big of a deal

Well, if the ACC got any better in football (which they really didn't) it came at the expense of the Big East. So, what was the net improvement?

 

And what's the point of being in a conference if it is so large that you don't play half the teams in it? Hell, at 16, you'll have to divide it into 8 team divisions which means you'll either not even play everyone in your division or do at the expense of playing only one team from the other division (which basically negates the point of being a conference). And if you don't even play all the teams in your division, you could likely have a bunch of teams staking a claim of conference title that never even played each other. It's bad enough that we have to decide who among the 3-4 teams all over the country are the most worthy of playing for the title. Now it will quite likely happen within the conferences as well.

 

Sure, change happens, but I just don't see how this change is an improvement for the fans. I want to see UT play USC in the regular season as well. So why not just have them play OOC?

 

The bit about Seattle is not quite the same. I think, in general, the realignment was a smart way to distribute the expanded league size. And expanding the league in general was change that could be seen as good for the customer because it brought a new team to an area that didn't have one. Obviously teams were going to move around but I think the NFL actually did a fine job. Seattle was the obvious team to leave the AFC west because it had the least amount of history. And, they did set things up regionally where possible. Surely Dallas is not in the east, but it would have been worse to break up those rivalries. Sure, there are teams further west than St. Louis but all of them are either already in a western division or are part of the old rivalries that make up the new NFC North. The true test is that what the NFL did makes more sense than pretty much any idea you could throw out.

 

So my issue is not with change, it's with change that I feel only improves the short term profitability of the product and at the expense of the fans.

 

And, though this was Menudo's point and not yours, why would this lead us any closer to a play-off?

Edited June 13, 2010 by detlef

[Menudo]

And, though this was Menudo's point and not yours, why would this lead us any closer to a play-off?

 

I'm not sure that it will, but, I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that with all the changes going on, it will be looked at as an opportunity to make the one big change that most are waiting for.

[Gopher]

I think it's too early to tell what impact this will have... I agree that hopefully we will someday have a playoff. Whether or not these realignments get us any closer to that, I don't know. Unfortunately, when changes like this take place, they happen because the powers that be (University presidents, athletic directors, etc.) have a vested interest in the change. In other words, nothing changes unless it is going to put more money in their pockets. As we discuss these schools potentially moving from one conference to another, a lot of people throw around terms that infer that the school will "bring in more money" by doing so... Who do you think actually sees that money? It's not the players (at least not officially, obviously), it's not the athletic teams themselves, it's certainly not the fans, faculty, or even the coaches (for the most part). It's the people at the top that are going to pocket any extra revenue, if there is such a thing... AD's and above. There may be a few exceptions to this rule, but as a general rule, that's what it boils down to.

 

The people at the top make the decisions based strictly on how it will benefit them financially. Why do you think there are currently 35 bowl games, and the NCAA is looking at possibly increasing that number to 38 within a couple of years (as well as change the criteria for being bowl-eligible to where teams with a 5-7 record can make a bowl)? People assume that these schools make money (for the school itself) by getting to a bowl game.... That's simply not the case, for the most part. A lot of the schools that make the "lesser" bowl games actually LOSE money by going to a bowl. In other words, it costs the school more to send their team, coaching staff, training staff, band, etc. to the bowl venue than the amount they actually receive with the invitation. The catch is that, in almost every case, the athletic director has a "bowl bonus" written in their contract. These AD's are very well aware of this, and are willing to allow the school to take a financial hit, in exchange for them personally to get the $30,000-50,000 bonus by reaching the bowl. Once again, this is largely true for the teams making the "less important" bowls... But, let's face it.... 80% of the bowl games in Dec/January fall into that category.

 

Does that mean that these moves won't help us get to a better system (playoff) eventually? Who knows. But, let's not kid ourselves here... this is all about money, and the only people benefiting are the people who actually make these decisions, coincidentally.

[Gopher]

As far as the changes themselves (obviously a lot of it is still up in the air), it does seem a little bit weird to me... Texas could potentially play a team like Oregon (assuming Texas goes to the Pac-10) for a conference title, while Texas A&M could, in theory, play Florida for theirs. No matter what happens, it will take some getting used to, and it will probably bother me a bit, at least at first. But, I can remember feeling the same way when MLB went to six divisions... The Twins were no longer in the AL West, and consequently no longer "division rivals" with the A's (if you remember, Minnesota won their two World Series titles right around the same time as the end of the "Bash Brothers" dynasty, if that's what you want to call it, so the series between those teams were fairly intense). There have been plenty of other realignments over the years, in both professional and college sports, that had the same impact (Seattle moving to the NFC was mentioned previously). They all seem strange at first, but it doesn't take too long for most fans to get over them. Obviously, some of these collegiate conferences have been around for a lot longer than many pro divisions/conferences, so I do get the fact that it might take a little longer to get used to some of this.

 

All of that said, I just hope these changes somehow improve college football, as opposed to making it worse. In other words, I don't think anybody knows exactly what's going to happen, for sure, so it's hard to say how all of this will affect the post-season for college football. The current system, with the BCS, seems to never end up without some amount of controversy... I just hope the "new system", whatever it may be (assuming some things are going to change as a result of the major conferences changing), doesn't make things even more cloudy, in terms of which teams get to play where in the post-season.

 

So far, the one move I do really like is Boise State joining TCU, BYU, and Utah in the MWC... that should make that conference even stronger, which I think is exciting, considering how well those teams have represented in recent bowl games.

[detlef]

I think it's too early to tell what impact this will have... I agree that hopefully we will someday have a playoff. Whether or not these realignments get us any closer to that, I don't know. Unfortunately, when changes like this take place, they happen because the powers that be (University presidents, athletic directors, etc.) have a vested interest in the change. In other words, nothing changes unless it is going to put more money in their pockets. As we discuss these schools potentially moving from one conference to another, a lot of people throw around terms that infer that the school will "bring in more money" by doing so... Who do you think actually sees that money? It's not the players (at least not officially, obviously), it's not the athletic teams themselves, it's certainly not the fans, faculty, or even the coaches (for the most part). It's the people at the top that are going to pocket any extra revenue, if there is such a thing... AD's and above. There may be a few exceptions to this rule, but as a general rule, that's what it boils down to.

 

The people at the top make the decisions based strictly on how it will benefit them financially. Why do you think there are currently 35 bowl games, and the NCAA is looking at possibly increasing that number to 38 within a couple of years (as well as change the criteria for being bowl-eligible to where teams with a 5-7 record can make a bowl)? People assume that these schools make money (for the school itself) by getting to a bowl game.... That's simply not the case, for the most part. A lot of the schools that make the "lesser" bowl games actually LOSE money by going to a bowl. In other words, it costs the school more to send their team, coaching staff, training staff, band, etc. to the bowl venue than the amount they actually receive with the invitation. The catch is that, in almost every case, the athletic director has a "bowl bonus" written in their contract. These AD's are very well aware of this, and are willing to allow the school to take a financial hit, in exchange for them personally to get the $30,000-50,000 bonus by reaching the bowl. Once again, this is largely true for the teams making the "less important" bowls... But, let's face it.... 80% of the bowl games in Dec/January fall into that category.

 

Does that mean that these moves won't help us get to a better system (playoff) eventually? Who knows. But, let's not kid ourselves here... this is all about money, and the only people benefiting are the people who actually make these decisions, coincidentally.

All this doesn't change the fact that this could all come back to bite them in the ass. If the ADs are the only ones who profit from increasing the number of bowls, the schools can, and should, overrule their desire to add bowl games.

 

If enough people feel all these decisions are to the detriment of the product, it can, and should, result in an ultimate loss of revenues.

 

And, again, this should not be construed as a blanket indictment on all changes in how sports divide themselves up. It isn't simply a matter of "it's always been this way, so why change it" Rather, "don't change it into something that doesn't make sense." Dividing MLB into 6 divisions and having 2 wildcards is something that, I think, makes the league better and more entertaining. It also makes more sense regionally. ATL is no longer in the west, for instance. Sure, there was going to be an adjustment, like yours with the Twins v As, but it's worth it because the Twins will likely cultivate far more meaningful rivalries going forward considering their proximity to their new division foes.

 

I don't see the ultimate pay-off in enduring the transition to needlessly large conferences with no regional or historical meaning. At least for the fans.

[Perchoutofwater]

I think it's too early to tell what impact this will have... I agree that hopefully we will someday have a playoff. Whether or not these realignments get us any closer to that, I don't know. Unfortunately, when changes like this take place, they happen because the powers that be (University presidents, athletic directors, etc.) have a vested interest in the change. In other words, nothing changes unless it is going to put more money in their pockets. As we discuss these schools potentially moving from one conference to another, a lot of people throw around terms that infer that the school will "bring in more money" by doing so... Who do you think actually sees that money? It's not the players (at least not officially, obviously), it's not the athletic teams themselves, it's certainly not the fans, faculty, or even the coaches (for the most part). It's the people at the top that are going to pocket any extra revenue, if there is such a thing... AD's and above. There may be a few exceptions to this rule, but as a general rule, that's what it boils down to.

 

The people at the top make the decisions based strictly on how it will benefit them financially. Why do you think there are currently 35 bowl games, and the NCAA is looking at possibly increasing that number to 38 within a couple of years (as well as change the criteria for being bowl-eligible to where teams with a 5-7 record can make a bowl)? People assume that these schools make money (for the school itself) by getting to a bowl game.... That's simply not the case, for the most part. A lot of the schools that make the "lesser" bowl games actually LOSE money by going to a bowl. In other words, it costs the school more to send their team, coaching staff, training staff, band, etc. to the bowl venue than the amount they actually receive with the invitation. The catch is that, in almost every case, the athletic director has a "bowl bonus" written in their contract. These AD's are very well aware of this, and are willing to allow the school to take a financial hit, in exchange for them personally to get the $30,000-50,000 bonus by reaching the bowl. Once again, this is largely true for the teams making the "less important" bowls... But, let's face it.... 80% of the bowl games in Dec/January fall into that category.

 

Does that mean that these moves won't help us get to a better system (playoff) eventually? Who knows. But, let's not kid ourselves here... this is all about money, and the only people benefiting are the people who actually make these decisions, coincidentally.

 

The elite bowls and the second tier bowls still make their athletic departments a whole lot of money. Still, it's the TV contracts also bring in money to the athletic department. If we end up with these super-conferences, it will be good all the teams in them, but will make those that aren't invited to join more like a lower division, which frankly when you look at most of their teams they are. If the TV money is all about the same, which is what the super-conferences will bring about, we should eventually see a lot more evenly matched teams, which is good if you are a fan of a team in one of the super-conferences. Sure the AD's and the coaches get bonuses for bowl appearances, but most of the money made of the TV contracts goes to fund money losing sports such and to build new plush facilities to help attract the top talent.

[Gopher]

All this doesn't change the fact that this could all come back to bite them in the ass. If the ADs are the only ones who profit from increasing the number of bowls, the schools can, and should, overrule their desire to add bowl games.

 

If enough people feel all these decisions are to the detriment of the product, it can, and should, result in an ultimate loss of revenues.

You would think, but that's why bowl games in college football are a complete racket (or at least the bottom 30-50% of them). Some of them (them meaning the schools participating in the bottom bowls) may break even, when all is said and done. Others actually lose money. The AD's are the ones who are, in large part, in favor of increasing the number of bowl games. It's ironic that the increase in bowls would pad those same AD's pocketbooks a lot more than it would help the schools financially. Yet, they are still able to sell it to the masses as getting a bowl bid is a good thing, no matter how far they lower the bowl standards.

 

As for your second statement, you would think that that would be the case as well. But, in a society where professional (fake) wrestling still draws a fairly decent crowd, I don't think there are enough people willing to stop going to college football games, as well as watch them on TV, to make that kind of impact. The schools that sell out consistently are still going to do so, and the ones who don't, won't.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is this... The people who decide these things (who moves to what conference, whether they want to have more bowl games or less, etc.) have their own personal finances in mind. That's their number one focus point... Not the school, not the coaches, not the players, and CERTAINLY not the fans. They will do whatever they can to make themselves, first and foremost, the most money possible. Their second concern (and in some cases, I think it's a distant second) is how the program benefits from the decisions they make. Coaches can be replaced, players come and go, and sadly, most fans will for the most part stay loyal, no matter what happens. So, let's not be naive enough to just assume that these changes are for the betterment of the college football product. They may help make a better product, but they may just as well make it worse. The powers that be will push the envelope just enough to possibly piss off a few fans, but not enough that it is detrimental to the point that they stop making money, which is what it's all about.

 

And, again, this should not be construed as a blanket indictment on all changes in how sports divide themselves up. It isn't simply a matter of "it's always been this way, so why change it" Rather, "don't change it into something that doesn't make sense." Dividing MLB into 6 divisions and having 2 wildcards is something that, I think, makes the league better and more entertaining. It also makes more sense regionally. ATL is no longer in the west, for instance. Sure, there was going to be an adjustment, like yours with the Twins v As, but it's worth it because the Twins will likely cultivate far more meaningful rivalries going forward considering their proximity to their new division foes.

 

I don't see the ultimate pay-off in enduring the transition to needlessly large conferences with no regional or historical meaning. At least for the fans.

I agree... All I was saying (and I apologize if the point I was trying to make got lost in the shuffle, due to the length of my post) is that divisional/conference realignment is usually hard to accept at first, but quickly forgotten in the long run. You're exactly right about the Twins... it was difficult to begin with. But, like you said, their rivals are now more geographically sensible ones... Chicago, Detroit, and inter-league border rival Milwaukee, rather than teams on the West coast. However, the premise that an alignment will be quickly forgotten is assuming that the alignment was a sensible one to begin with. That's my concern... If these changes to to college football conferences turn out to be a good thing, they'll be quickly forgotten. If not, college football fans could be left shaking their heads for the next 30 years, wondering what the point of the changes were, when we're still left with an unclear method of determining the national champion.

[Gopher]

The elite bowls and the second tier bowls still make their athletic departments a whole lot of money. Still, it's the TV contracts also bring in money to the athletic department. If we end up with these super-conferences, it will be good all the teams in them, but will make those that aren't invited to join more like a lower division, which frankly when you look at most of their teams they are. If the TV money is all about the same, which is what the super-conferences will bring about, we should eventually see a lot more evenly matched teams, which is good if you are a fan of a team in one of the super-conferences. Sure the AD's and the coaches get bonuses for bowl appearances, but most of the money made of the TV contracts goes to fund money losing sports such and to build new plush facilities to help attract the top talent.

The perception is that bowls make a lot of money for the schools. In actuality, it's simply not the case. Maybe the BCS bowls, and a handful of others... the rest are lucky to break even, yet the AD's for those schools get a very nice chunk of change for getting their team to a bowl with a 7-5 or 6-6 record.

 

As for bigger conferences generating more evenly matched teams, I think it's far too early to tell if that will be the case. I do know this... for every winner, there's a loser. If these realignments make life better for some schools, they'll most certainly make things worse for others. Example... Do you think Arizona and ASU are thrilled about joining six Texas/Oklahoma teams to make up the bottom half of the Pac-16? My guess is that they're not.

[myhousekey]

Hope this is true.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5284375

 

The departure of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac-10 is imminent, four sources within the Big 12 said Monday.

 

One source said commissioner Dan Beebe's last-minute plan to save the conference has "zero" chance to succeed. Another source said it is "very unlikely" to succeed.

 

Texas' interests in being aligned with the research opportunities and academic missions of Pac-10 schools is driving the decision, along with money.

 

Beebe's last-ditch plan included an emotional plea about preserving rivalries and maintaining the best welfare of the student-athlete, one source said.

 

Texas A&M is now most likely to join the SEC, a source within the Big 12 said. This move, in the wake of Colorado and Nebraska's departure, would further diminish the chance of Beebe's plan succeeding, one source said.

 

Texas' decision is expected to come no later than Tuesday. One source familiar with Texas' plans suggested a hearing on Wednesday at the Texas House of Representatives is "a nonfactor."

[detlef]

Hope this is true.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5284375

Glad to see it. Now the Big 12 simply needs to poach a few teams from a lesser conference and everything will be fine. Ideally, teams that would fit in the south so they can move OU into the north.

[Big John]

Now, Texas may be staying put in the Big XII but would be dependent on Texas A&M staying too.

[Square]

Now, Texas may be staying put in the Big XII but would be dependent on Texas A&M staying too.

This is I think I'm going to stop reading anything about college football until Texas has their regent meetings tomorrow. Hopefully they have some kind of announcement so we can straighten this out.

[buddahj]

The Big 10 becomes the Big 12 & the Big 12 becomes the Big 10

[Big John]

Now, Texas may be staying put in the Big XII but would be dependent on Texas A&M staying too.

Official announcement: Texas is saying in the Big XII

 

 

 

edit : Texas A&M may follow suit

Edited June 15, 2010 by Big John

[Glabra]

Interesting article on the academic considerations around expansion.

 

Basically, the "caste system" in academia makes the Indian caste system look flexible. People outside of academia don't really grasp how much this is influencing things. Besides, we are talking about hundreds of millions in athletic revenue, and billions in research funds. Huge difference.

[SEC=UGA]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/foot...dex.html?hpt=T2

 

They're all staying put.

[myhousekey]

We blew it. I'm very disappointed in my Aggies today. Sheep blindly following the herd.

[wildcat2334]

wow- 11th hour decision by Texas to stay - I must say I was shocked to hear they were staying...................but I guess

 

not necessarily a bad thing when all is said and done. They obviously were given assurance they could get close to what the Pac 10 could offer TV $$-wise. Plus Texas gets to be the big fish in the little pond that is now a reallly thin football conference, and sub-par academically to the Pac 10 and Big 11 by a country mile. Is the Big 12 north as it stands today even BCS-worthy?? looks brutal to me

 

They would have gotten a bit lost with the bright lights and big cities out west, and actually had to play some tough road league games

 

Colorado and eventually Utah will round out the Pac 12 nicely enough as a plan B

[Dallas Sooner]

wow- 11th hour decision by Texas to stay - I must say I was shocked to hear they were staying...................but I guess

 

not necessarily a bad thing when all is said and done. They obviously were given assurance they could get close to what the Pac 10 could offer TV $$-wise. Plus Texas gets to be the big fish in the little pond that is now a reallly thin football conference, and sub-par academically to the Pac 10 and Big 11 by a country mile. Is the Big 12 north as it stands today even BCS-worthy?? looks brutal to me

 

They would have gotten a bit lost with the bright lights and big cities out west, and actually had to play some tough road league games

 

Colorado and eventually Utah will round out the Pac 12 nicely enough as a plan B

 

 

Seriously, Colorado has been a joke, and the big 12 gained more by them leaving. Nebraska lost to Iowa St this past year, how great are they. SUh dominated texas, but he is a once in a generation player Nebraska isnt getting anymore.

 

Had Texas and OU gone to the PAC -16, they would have biatch slapped the 2 Arz schools every year like they do Kansas St and Iowa st, and still their competition for that side of the Pac 10 title would have been the Big 12 south schools they have now. From what I have read they would have played their side of the conference for 7 games a year with 1 to 2 against the other side to give them 8-9 conference games a year, plus a 3-4 games non conference schedule. Unless one of those games were SC or Oregon in a good year, I dont see this schedule being much tougher than the one they will have next yr. For a decade Stanford, UW, and UCLA have been doormats in that conference with Arz and Arz St right on their heals as pathetic. Maybe UW and Standford found lighting in a bottle with their new coaching staff and whats likely to be top 2-3 QBs next yr. But neither of those schools have proven they can recruit enough talent year in, year out to be more than cinderella for half a season or so. same really goes for Org St. The SC game is their super bowl every year, and with their probation upcoming and incompetence in coaching, I see that program falling from its perch as well. Id put texas or OU as favorites to win that conference year in year out going forward if that Pac=16 happened. Will they have to travel west more and maybe have a tougher test that Iowa st or Kansas st, probably. But losing colorado actually stengthens the Big 12 lite and they moved to the pac-11 and weakened that conference. Hell you guys should have nabbed Boise St instead of Colorado. that so called denver market doesnt follow UC anyway, whoever convinced the Pac-10 that should be selling ocean front property in arizona. Also, is TCU joins the Big 12, they are year in year out better than Nebraska anyway. which could happen in 2012.

 

From what I read Texas and OU would have actually lost half their games on TV joining the Pac-16, with that tv network contract, and start times on the west coast games being 9:30 here would have lost a bigger audience than current 7:30 start time. Texas and OU did what was in their best interest on every level. they kept their regional dominance, TV market appeal, which is crucial for recruiting, and a Big 12 school has played for 7 NC in the last 10 years. OU with 4, Texas with 2, and Nebraska in 2001. The next best conference is the SEC with 5, and the Pac 10 played for the BCS title only twice with SC playing for both of those. What besides money did Texas or OU gain by moving into an oversized conference, 2 time zones away, losing TV games and a regional appeal but money. and now they got the money to stay. Its a win - win for them to stay put and they all did. You think Nebraska or Colorado wish they had stayed now. Im sure when Nebraska gets their ass handed to them in the Big 10 4 times a year they would think so, but then again, that happened here as well. And the Pac-10 got caught with their pants down on colorado. they rushed them in, to avoid having to take Baylor to fill out their 16 teams, and the talent decided to stay put and Colorado is now yours. Opps.

[Square]

Nebraska lost to Iowa St this past year, how great are they. SUh dominated texas, but he is a once in a generation player Nebraska isnt getting anymore.

This is laughable. The Nebraska vs Iowa State game only proved that any team can lose to anybody when they have 8 turnovers (and they lost by one point in the biggest fluke game I've ever seen). Besides, they almost beat a team that played for the NC and then they stomped a mud hole in the second best team from the PAC 10 in their bowl game. I'd say that made them reasonably good despite the poor QB play. And your second point about Suh is off as well. He was recruited during a Nebraska downturn by Callahan. So why exactly would we never be able to get a similar player if he came on during a down time now that they've had a couple solid back to back years and are more known for their defense? The biggest DE recruit in the nation ended up going to UCLA (Owa) but his last two schools were them and NU.

 

You think Nebraska or Colorado wish they had stayed now. Im sure when Nebraska gets their ass handed to them in the Big 10 4 times a year they would think so, but then again, that happened here as well.

Yea.. Nebraska had a 5-6 year stint of mediocrity. Don't act like it didn't happen to OU before Stoops (and he still gets the "big game" moniker) got there or Texas in the 80s & 90s. I don't think there is any reason that Nebraska would regret getting out of Big 12 lite. The big 10 actually fits better with tradition and the long term academic $$ (which is really getting under reported in this whole deal), football $$, and stability are exactly what they were looking for. Besides, I don't see how Nebraska has it bad in the Big 10. Yea, we won't be the top 1 or 2 teams, but I don't think it's a stretch to say we'd be considered the 4th or 5th best team and they'll have to earn any regard above that. After our bad years in the middle 00s, we have to work our way up to be considered good in any conference. No reasonable person thinks its the 90s anymore. But they also know there is a difference between NU now and NU under Callahan (who scrapped the walk on program along with several other traditions).

 

Texas won this negotiating thing though. They have a weaker conference to play. They get to dodge the chance to get knocked out in a big 12 championship game (I'm assuming there is no way to do this with a 10 team league). They get to control the conference and make more money than anybody else. They get to start their own network (which may grow up to be anything if/when they decide to expand it in the future). I'd say NU got out at a great time. Colorado is a bit of an enigma so I have no idea what they think.