<p>How do you feel about this???</p>
<p>I personally think the Big 12 needs to expand without losing teams.</p>
<p>Report:</a> Pac-10 thinking of raiding Big 12 - Dallas Colleges Blog - ESPN Dallas</p>
<p>fyi college football is all about money..</p>
<p>The Big 12 is an unstable conference, if one team left the entire conference would collapse. This merger would be able to place us with the best of the Big 12 as well as the best of the Pac-10, the TV market would be amazing, and to think of the millions we make on our deal now, there’s no doubt we’d be able to do a lot more! I say Bring it ON!!!</p>
<p>Who ever leaves the Big 12 will lose a handful of recruits.(IMO) Parents would no longer be able to catch every game on the weekends.</p>
<p>That’s not true at all, Pierre. There is no evidence to believe that this would hurt recruiting. Most of these teams has 6/7/8 home games a year, so the parents would only miss a few games which they would miss anyways. The Big 12 is unstable because it has terrible television contracts which hurts team revenue. These programs could got to the SEC, Big 10, and Pac 10 and see a huge boost in revenue instantly. Part of this is because the Big 12 doesn’t have their own network, but it is also because outside of Texas and Missouri, there are no big television markets. The fact of the matter is that college football, and college sports alike, are a business and about making money. So they will follow the money.</p>
<p>We shall see in the coming weeks/months… As if they arent already making money though.</p>
<p>It is a business, maybe you will learn at some point that businesses try to make money. And when they make money, they try to get more.</p>
<p>This has been talked about for months in various forms. It won’t happen.</p>
<p>Texas MIGHT consider jumping to the Big Ten. MIGHT. There is absolutely no way Texas would go to the Pac-10. For starters, the money isn’t there. Texas will not make more money overall, and you’d only see USC in Austin once every 8 or 16 years. The academic benefits are a plus but wouldn’t sway it. Plus, for non-football, DeLoss won’t want kids travelling back and forth from godforsaken places like Pullman, WA and Corvallis, OR on Tuesday nights. We also won’t want UT football to kick off at 9 PM, which it will for half its games.</p>
<p>All in all, it’s just writers stretching for material, not something realistic. The same thing has been said about UT joining the Big Ten and the SEC. They’ll probably throw in the ACC next. It still isn’t happening.</p>
<p>I’d give it about a 2% chance that UT plus TAMU and Mizzou jump to the Big Ten. The whole “Pac-10 raid” scenario, which is ridiculous, as the Pac-10 isn’t a powerful enough conference to raid the Big 12, would maybe have a 0.2% chance of success.</p>
<p>UT won’t join the SEC. They had the chance before joining the Big 12 back in the 90’s, but the SEC told UT that they had no intentions of raising academic standards, so UT backed off. Nothing has changed in the SEC, so I see no reason why UT would go there now.</p>
<p>I would support the move to the Pac 10. The Big 12 is a house of cards waiting to collapse. If a package deal was offered with a collection of schools all moving together, I think it is a good deal. The conference will be divided which would help with travel costs. I’ve seen it written that each school in the Pac 16 scenario would be making $20M a year from TV revenue. The Big 12 isn’t going to survive. UT needs to make sure to maximize its position through all the upcoming changes.</p>
<p>Yeah, if the PAC-10 absorbs the big12 south (with Colorado instead of Baylor), they would then split the conference into two divisions having the old big12 teams + Arizona teams. There would not be that much more traveling.</p>
<p>Baylor isn’t coming if the move happens. They don’t have the legislative clout they did in the 1990s (back when both the Governor and Lt. Governor were Baylor alumni) to force their way in, don’t have the teams to make themselves competitive (primarily in football), and don’t add TV sets that aren’t already watching UT, A&M, or Texas Tech High School.</p>
<p>The key thing about this whole discussion is what Missouri and Nebraska end up doing. They, along with UT, control the cards. If one of those schools, or none, announce they’re seriously considering the Big Ten, then it will be business as usual, with the possible attempt to add Utah, BYU, or Houston to replace them. If both leave, it makes things more vulnerable. The Big 12 could likely add two teams and continue as well. However, two teams leaving makes other teams more likely to want to bolt as well, especially with the money the Big Ten traitors would make. However, Texas holds the keys to this agreement. This is not a potential invitation for “any of you six schools can come in any permutation,” it’s for “Texas and whichever of the rest of you tag along.” They won’t win the TV war in Texas without UT, and won’t have the foothold to establish a TV network nationally without UT.</p>
<p>If Mizzou and Nebraska both bolt, I think that UT will either end up as an independent with their own Longhorn Sports Network throughout the state and maybe nationally (not as farfetched as it would sound–UT is one of four or five programs that could pull this off nationally). I’m sure NBC would love to sign UT as the second weekly game of their double header for Notre Dame football (as ND always plays afternoons) or to guarantee a game every week. They could organize a late-season UT vs ND game to function as a de facto conference championship game, and it would be rather successful. The second is the mega-Pac Ten option, which is more likely than us going independent, but which has a whole heap of drawbacks.</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, though, the dice are in Mizzou and Nebraska’s hands for now. If this doesn’t end up being a whole lot of talk for nothing, as I believe it likely will, Texas will control the destiny of college football’s conference alignments for the next hundred years solely within our own hands. But I don’t think we’re going to get that power–we will remain in the Big 12 and we will continue to make more money than anyone else in the nation while in the Big 12, perhaps bolstered by our own TV channel.</p>
<p>the Pac 10 has officially said they’re ready to expand</p>
<p>I’m sick of seeing all these schools for stupids tagging along with Texas every time Texas tries to leave to better their position. Baylor, Tech for example. I have no issue with A&M especially since they’re a traditional rival. Do you think Stanford and other top academic schools in the Pac10 will allow their conference to get dumber when they have their pick of top academic AND athletic schools? I know they have OSU and Wazzu already, but do you think they would be willing to gain only Texas (and A&M) and get hit with OU, OSU, Baylor (since legislators in Texas are going to force their inclusion over Colorado), and Tech?</p>
<p>well legislators mainly would like to get Baylor in…</p>
<p>The Big 12 has gave nebraska and mizzou an ultimatum, so we should know if they’re leaving within 2-3 weeks. </p>
<p>i dont think academics should play a roll in this, i mean Stanford owns all the schools academically.</p>
<p>If the Big 12 loses any schools, i think TCU/UH/SMU should get a bid.</p>
<p>Part of why Texas did not join the SEC back when the SWC died was because the SEC refused to impart academic standards</p>
<p>Schools need time to grow academically.</p>
<p>Is that what they believe at Tech?</p>
<p>idk, but why did Texas join the big xii?</p>
<p>That ultimatum is bull if you ask me. What are they going to do if they don’t tell them their intentions? I find it hard to believe the Big 12 would kick them out, seeing as that could mean the end of the conference.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t see SMU getting an offer to the BIg12, their athletic teams are just not up to snuff. I can see TCU or UH possibly getting one. It really depends on who the Big 12 loses. If you lose Missouri, all of the sudden the Big 12’s second largest TV market takes a hit and the conference may collapse because adding TCU or UH doesn’t add any markets that aren’t already part of the conference.</p>
<p>Why would academics not play a roll in this, Pierre? Stanford doesn’t own everyone in the Pac-10. They may be the best of the conference, but I don’t think Stanford “owns” Berkeley. UCLA and USC are not bad either. Academics most likely won’t be the main factor in the possible re-aligning, but they will play some role.</p>
<p>so you would choose Berkeley/USC over Stanford?</p>
<p>are the UC schools good in FB? just wondering</p>