OU, OSU, UT, TT, CU and A&M to the Pac 10?

[Mr.B!!!]

I can definitely see how the North schools felt slighted, but how does that move translate into the beginning of the Big 12's front office running the conference into the ground? Are you suggesting that the Big 12 wouldn't have been so inept had they not relocated their offices and remained intact in KC?

No, I am suggesting that Mizzou and Nebraska would not have such strong sentiments about ditching the B12. I think Wieberg and Bebee are inept, but not solely based on subpar television deals...and Bebee could certainly make the claim that of course the SEC got a better deal becuase theirs is newer. But with the climate created (in part) by ditching KC, those schools aren't wanting to listen.

This is pure speculation, but deep down UT wants to keep the B12 around AND have its own network. Deep down OU wants to keep its rivalry with UT and so that makes staying in the B12 the most viable option. aTm just wants to feel important, but their athletic department needs the money, Mizzou really wants to leave and is practically begging the B10 to give them an invitation and Nebraska is very similar to aTm, they just want respect wherever it is they go and probably see this as an opportunity to get some.

 

[Sawyer]

I don't know if "practically begging" is the way I'd describe MU's stance toward the Big 12, but I do agree that most of the people with a say in the matter at MU would much prefer the Big 10 (for financial and academic reasons mostly). I don't think Pinkel would be too enamored with the move, as Texas recruiting has been a huge part of what he's done at Mizzou, but looking at his more recent recruiting patterns it looks like he's putting more emphasis on that part of the country.

I think a lot of what's been said in the press by Mizzou people regarding the Big 10 is as much to sell MU fans on the move.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I don't know if "practically begging" is the way I'd describe MU's stance toward the Big 12, but I do agree that most of the people with a say in the matter at MU would much prefer the Big 10 (for financial and academic reasons mostly). I don't think Pinkel would be too enamored with the move, as Texas recruiting has been a huge part of what he's done at Mizzou, but looking at his more recent recruiting patterns it looks like he's putting more emphasis on that part of the country.

I think a lot of what's been said in the press by Mizzou people regarding the Big 10 is as much to sell MU fans on the move.

Probably strong wording, but certainly Mizzou has nothing to dissuade the discussion and, personally, I think that much of the scuttlebutt that has been thrown out there originates from Mizzou itself.

I'd add one other thing, I know that UT commands a bunch of homes and a big market share, but why ANY conference would not see the deal with that devil is beyond me. Look how quickly they overtook the rest of the B12 in clout. That is why I am for a Pac-16....the entire west coast will tell UT to kiss it. If I were a conference, I'd avoid UT like the plague it is and let them have their network and be an independent. I'd do the same with ND.

 

[Sawyer]

The latest from orangebloods... http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091406

Looks like politics is coming into play.

I'd like to see the Pac 10 take TT, A&M, CU, OU, OSU and Utah, the Big 10 take MU and NU (plus some Big East schools), and have UT try to make things work as an independent. It seems to be what they really want, anyway (ideally they'd be an independent with a bunch of indentured servants working for them...).

 

[Cheno]

By reports on how the Big 12 meetings ended Friday all this chitter chatter may be for not. Sounds like most seem confident that the Big 12 will stay intact. And I read where Joe C and Lew Perkins were two of the biggest supporters of it.

 

[Tony]

Kirk Bohls

Two highly placed Big 12 school officials told me Nebraska and Missouri have been given a deadline of Friday to decide their futures.

 

[Sawyer]

Also on his twitter feed:

Just talked to a highly placed Big 12 source, who said, "If I were a betting man, I'd bet (Texas, A&M, Tech) will be in Pac-10. It's 60-40."

Somehow I doubt the Big 12 also gave UT a deadline...

 

[MsProudSooner]

Someone on Insider posted that the Texas Legislature is going to try to force Baylor on the PAC 10.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

Someone on Insider posted that the Texas Legislature is going to try to force Baylor on the PAC 10.

Don't believe the hype MSP.

This whole Baylor thing has gone unchallenged, but Ann Richards wasn't that strong of a governor. Baylor was just a better fit than Houston, TCU and SMU. That said, I heard the same thing, trade Baylor for oSu. Makes some sense.

 

[HoHum]

Would be shocked to see Stanford and the rest of the PAC 10 sign off on taking Baylor. A private, Baptist school? I really doubt it. They already have a private, religion-affiliated school near them in BYU that I would bet they aren't taking for that very reason.

 

[Sid]

Osborne, Tressel engaged in expansion chit-chat
Posted by John Taylor on June 5, 2010 7:23 PM ET

While the following post is not exactly earth-shattering news, it's just another sign that what's thrown out there for consumption to the masses might not exactly be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Much like their counterparts at the Columbus Dispatch did yesterday, the Dallas Morning News has obtained emails through an open records request from both Texas Tech and Nebraska regarding the expansion issue.

Again, the missives obtained by the paper were nothing that will shake the college football world to its very core -- "I'm very concerned about this," a late April email from Tech chancellor Kent Hance read in part -- but it still points out the obvious: for every conversation admitted to publicly, there are likely hundreds going on behind closed doors and in the back rooms that nobody will (likely) ever know about.

The latest example of a closed-door conversation?

According to an email obtained by the Morning News, NU athletic director Tom Osborne wrote an email to university chancellor Harvey Perlman explaining to him that he had spoken recently to Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel and that he (Osborne) thought "it would be a good idea if we met sometime soon regarding the expansion landscape."

That email was dated April 20, long before the latest round of rumors jarred the landscaped.

Nebraska has long been rumored to be a target of the Big Ten -- or at least hoping to be a target -- and this email at least confirms that it's being discussed at the highest levels. As if that weren't already a given...

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/05/osborne-tressel-engaged-in-expansion-chit-chat/

 

[Mr.B!!!]

Is there anybody else that is actually enjoying all of this?

We are OU and any conference that is driven by football dollars is going to want OU to be a part of it so I am not all that worried about the future. If it is an academics issue, we have an accredited medical school, law school and rank pretty well in various other categories. We may not be the "biggest" market, but we do bring OKC, Tulsa, North Texas and, much like Nebraska, a "national" following that comes from being a traditional powerhouse. One of the interesting things about the Pac-10 to me is how we stack up in the non-revenue sports, excellent women's hoops and softball, and pretty good in baseball and golf. Men's hoops we certainly upgrade the conference as well.

All in all, I'm excited about the future.

 

[Sid]

Is there anybody else that is actually enjoying all of this?

We are OU and any conference that is driven by football dollars is going to want OU to be a part of it so I am not all that worried about the future.

All in all, I'm excited about the future.

I agree. Has anyone else heard the TMC rumor that's floating around? Supposedly, T. Boone has made an offer to takeover C-USA. The league would change its name to the T. Boone USA Stars and Stripes Conference. OSU and KU would join the conference in 2011. The winner of the T. Boone conference would play the WAC champion in the Sani Flush Bowl formerly known as the Liberty Bowl.

PeteThamelNYT

Any chance for the SEC sweeping in to nab Texas and Texas A&M appears dim bc of "Tech problem" and Mack Brown not keen on LSU/Bama/AUB etc..

Source: Baylor appears to have bumped Colo in Pac-10 expansion. Also, Pac-10 pres have concern over TT and OSU academics.

http://twitter.com/PeteThamelNYT

 

[Tony]

Here is the most recent from orangebloods:

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091537

 

[jwg]

I don't see the Big 10 taking Nebraska. With their current distribution of 22 million , each additional team would require an additional 22 million from television revenue football and basketball. Nebraska will not provide this money. The other schools would have to take a cut in income.
I think 16 team conferences are a scheduling nightmare. The only major conference that has 16 teams is the Big East basketball , If the schedule remains at 8 conference football games, One will have 7 divisional games + 1 or 2 games in the other division.
If Ou were in a division without OSU and Texas, they would have only one free game.
Schedule a national game ( which would be home and home) they would end up with 6 home games instead of the 7 they would acutally lose revenue. A 8 game conference schedule would mean that would mean that a team would have a game against a particular team in the other division only once every 8 years with a 9 game schedule once every 4 years.

Athletic departments usually loose money for the university. Texas which has an
athletic department that makes 135 million donates 4 million to the university general fund. I doubt if OSU or OU make any revenue contribution to the general fund. In terms of state support OSU and OU which are 2 of the 3 having the least income of the state universities in the big 12. The budgets of OSU and OU are between 400 and 500 million Both universities require a common front for their apprach for state monies. The same is true for KU and KState and Texas, A&M, and Tech.

I think that basketball would be as important as football for the television money. Football would be cover 3 months usually one day a week, basketball would cover 4 months probably 2-3 days a week.

I don't see why Colorado would be attractive as an addition. They currently have the weakest overall sports program in the Big 12, no baseball, wrestling , swimming with most of their programs sucking water . The attraction would be the Denver market, but the University support is hurt badly by the Bronchos, Nuggets, and Rockies

 

[MVPx2]

Don't believe the hype MSP.

This whole Baylor thing has gone unchallenged, but Ann Richards wasn't that strong of a governor. Baylor was just a better fit than Houston, TCU and SMU. That said, I heard the same thing, trade Baylor for oSu. Makes some sense.

If Baylor takes the place of anyone (very doubtful), it would be Colorado. The Pac-10 wants nothing to do with a religiously affiliated school. Also, Baylor would add nothing to the conference in terms of football revenue or TV market. The only thing working in their favor is the fact that they field teams in a few sports that are significant in the Pac 10.

I hope all these big time recruits Drew is after don't mind playing in C-USA or the Mountain West and having only a handful of games televised each year.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

If Baylor takes the place of anyone (very doubtful), it would be Colorado. The Pac-10 wants nothing to do with a religiously affiliated school. Also, Baylor would add nothing to the conference in terms of football revenue or TV market. The only thing working in their favor is the fact that they field teams in a few sports that are significant in the Pac 10.

I hope all these big time recruits Drew is after don't mind playing in C-USA or the Mountain West and having only a handful of games televised each year.

If UT, aTm and TT are united in wanting Baylor, someone has to go. Colorado or oSu. Pac-10 already wanted Colorado for whatever reason (probably Denver and proximity). In any event OU is part of whatever deal it is so I am indifferent.

 

[MVPx2]

Baylor isn't wanted, just like no one wanted them in the Big 12.

 

[boksooner]

Athletic departments usually loose money for the university. Texas which has an
athletic department that makes 135 million donates 4 million to the university general fund. I doubt if OSU or OU make any revenue contribution to the general fund. In terms of state support OSU and OU which are 2 of the 3 having the least income of the state universities in the big 12. The budgets of OSU and OU are between 400 and 500 million Both universities require a common front for their apprach for state monies. The same is true for KU and KState and Texas, A&M, and Tech.

Last year, OU's athletic department gave $4 mill in direct and another estimated $3 mill in indirect support to the university's academic fund.

source

 

[boksooner]

If UT, aTm and TT are united in wanting Baylor, someone has to go. Colorado or oSu. Pac-10 already wanted Colorado for whatever reason (probably Denver and proximity). In any event OU is part of whatever deal it is so I am indifferent.

UT, aTm and TT don't want Baylor. A block of state legislators want Baylor in the Pac-10.