Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Woody1968]

Let'em go to the Pac-12 or whatever they wanna call it.. I dont want them in our league...

I say take 'em in a heartbeat.

 

[EasternBuck]

I agree, more high end games for the BIG. I like quality academics but I'm here because of football.

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

I say take 'em in a heartbeat.

OU is one lawsuit or ponzi scheme away from miami.... everyone forgets and quickly dismisses the Rhet Bomar stuff... but there were plenty of others before and after i'm sure. Color me jaded... but I don't want Choklahoma representing us in anything...

 

[BuckTwenty]

Oklahoma may be looking at jumping ship soon:




Would be great to get them for football. US News & World Report has them at #111 for best US colleges, with Nebraska at #104, so they'd be in the same low-ish area... I don't know if we'd want them for their academics.

Not just OU. Lots of buzz out there that there's apparently an offer on the table for OU, Okie State, Texas, and Texas Tech to join the Pac-12 (ESPN reporting the vast majority of it... not going to link it [it's easy to find]) and they are seriously considering the move. Pac-12 commish claims schools reached out to them (of course). Also, sounds like Texas would have to make some concessions on the LHN, as the Pac-12 doesn't want to play any games with regards to TV money.

Big XII will be going under soon. Delaney better be putting some university presidents on his speed dial, if he's not already talking to them.

 

[damiandoan]

If those 4 (OK, OKst, Tx, & TxT) land in the PAC, where do the rest of the BXII schools land? Iowa St, Kstate, & Baylor are probably f'ed. Does the B1G pickup Mizzou & Kansas? Any real chance either of them go with A&M to the SEC? Big East bound?

 

[Woody1968]

If those 4 (OK, OKst, Tx, & TxT) land in the PAC, where do the rest of the BXII schools land? Iowa St, Kstate, & Baylor are probably f'ed. Does the B1G pickup Mizzou & Kansas? Any real chance either of them go with A&M to the SEC? Big East bound?

If we can't get Oklahoma, there's no point in expanding at this point in time. Missouri is meh, and Kansas is great in basketball, but this is about Football. KState would have seemed like a decent pickup about 12 years ago - Now? Not so much.

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

If we can't get Oklahoma, there's no point in expanding at this point in time. Missouri is meh, and Kansas is great in basketball, but this is about Football. KState would have seemed like a decent pickup about 12 years ago - Now? Not so much.

Problem is politics... You don't get OU with out getin Pokie State, you don't get Kansas without taking KSU... thats just the way it is...

 

[Woody1968]

Problem is politics... You don't get OU with out getin Pokie State, you don't get Kansas without taking KSU... thats just the way it is...

Which is why I'm not for taking any of the crappy leftovers if OK goes west.

 

[sepia5]

I just have a hard time believing that schools like Washington, Cal Berkley, and Stanford are going to be OK with adding Texas Tech, Okie State, and even Oklahoma. But who knows.

 

[Dryden]

I just have a hard time believing that schools like Washington, Cal Berkley, and Stanford are going to be OK with adding Texas Tech, Okie State, and even Oklahoma. But who knows.

Oregon State and Arizona State aren't exactly elite, if you go by the USNWR rankings. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State rate higher. In fact, Oklahoma would slot in equal to Oregon and Washington State, and ahead of both Arizona schools and Oregon State.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

I just have a hard time believing that schools like Washington, Cal Berkley, and Stanford are going to be OK with adding Texas Tech, Okie State, and even Oklahoma. But who knows.

Well, does the Pac-12 have a research counterpart as well? If not, what is the degradation of their reputation as its tied to TT, Okie St., and what have you? If so, then I can understand. The Big Ten has the CIC to worry about, I'm just not sure if other conferences do or not.

The money that OK, TT and Okie St. would bring to the athletic budgets is going to be a lot. Presidents would be stupid not to consider the solvency of those budgets.

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

I just have a hard time believing that schools like Washington, Cal Berkley, and Stanford are going to be OK with adding Texas Tech, Okie State, and even Oklahoma. But who knows.

Also keep in mind that the current UT president, Bill Powers, is a Berkley grad, and wants badly to be in the PAC [strike]10[/strike] 12 Now that A&M has made their move I expect, OU, OKSt,TTech, and UT to head to the PAC 16

 

[sepia5]

You guys may well be right, and if the increased revenue that would come from adding those schools is enough, you probably are. But I distinctly recall reading over and over again during the last expansion period that any expansion must be approved by all members of the PAC-10 and that, with regard to BYU, there were two problems: (1) its religious affiliation and (2) its academic standards coupled with the fact that it isn't a research institution. You're definitely right that academic standards and research capabilities are more important to the Big Ten than any other conference due to the CIC. But I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that Stanford or Cal Berkley could hold up an expansion process that includes Texas Tech and Okie State.

Getting Texas may be enough to convince the entirety of the conference to go along with expansion. But then again, Colorado left the Big 12 for a reason, and a big part of its decision to do so was Texas' bullying attitude. At this stage, Texas seems pretty wedded to the Longhorn Network, and I don't understand how that meshes with a move to the Pac-10. Forget Colorado's objection to such a setup. I can't imagine USC, UCLA, and Stanford permitting the Longhorns to come on Board with its own network. I'm a bit skeptical of the stated demand for a Longhorn Network to begin with, but if Texas is convinced it can work, I'm not sure why, from its perspective, moving to the Big 12 would be better than independent status in the long run. And if Texas isn't part of a package that includes the likes of the Okie schools and Texas Tech, why in the world would the Pac-10 go that route? For instance, wouldn't Mizzou, with its superior academic record and the St. Louis and Kansas City markets, actually be a better fit than any of those other schools in many respects?

This "Big 12 teams to the PAC 10" expansion theory has a lot of holes in it, in my IMO. But many of you guys may be more knowledgeable on this topic than me. It still seems to me that if mega conferences are the way of the future, the Big Ten, with its CIC and conference network, will be the catalyst.

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

You guys may well be right, and if the increased revenue that would come from adding those schools is enough, you probably are. But I distinctly recall reading over and over again during the last expansion period that any expansion must be approved by all members of the PAC-10 and that, with regard to BYU, there were two problems: (1) its religious affiliation and (2) its academic standards coupled with the fact that it isn't a research institution. You're definitely right that academic standards and research capabilities are more important to the Big Ten than any other conference due to the CIC. But I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that Stanford or Cal Berkley could hold up an expansion process that includes Texas Tech and Okie State.

Getting Texas may be enough to convince the entirety of the conference to go along with expansion. But then again, Colorado left the Big 12 for a reason, and a big part of its decision to do so was Texas' bullying attitude. At this stage, Texas seems pretty wedded to the Longhorn Network, and I don't understand how that meshes with a move to the Pac-10. Forget Colorado's objection to such a setup. I can't imagine USC, UCLA, and Stanford permitting the Longhorns to come on Board with its own network. I'm a bit skeptical of the stated demand for a Longhorn Network to begin with, but if Texas is convinced it can work, I'm not sure why, from its perspective, moving to the Big 12 would be better than independent status in the long run. And if Texas isn't part of a package that includes the likes of the Okie schools and Texas Tech, why in the world would the Pac-10 go that route? For instance, wouldn't Mizzou, with its superior academic record and the St. Louis and Kansas City markets, actually be a better fit than any of those other schools in many respects?

This "Big 12 teams to the PAC 10" expansion theory has a lot of holes in it, in my IMO. But many of you guys may be more knowledgeable on this topic than me. It still seems to me that if mega conferences are the way of the future, the Big Ten, with its CIC and conference network, will be the catalyst.

Sepia

There is 1 thing your missing, the PAC 12 is pushing the Pac 12 Network + regional networks.. So SO Cal gets theirs, San Fran schools get theirs, Oregon, Washington etc etc... so the Longhorn network fits perfectly into their plans if they can convince UT to make it regional, then you'll have the OU Network for OU & OkState and Longhorn Network for UT & Tech....

 

[Woody1968]

You guys may well be right, and if the increased revenue that would come from adding those schools is enough, you probably are. But I distinctly recall reading over and over again during the last expansion period that any expansion must be approved by all members of the PAC-10 and that, with regard to BYU, there were two problems: (1) its religious affiliation and (2) its academic standards coupled with the fact that it isn't a research institution. You're definitely right that academic standards and research capabilities are more important to the Big Ten than any other conference due to the CIC. But I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that Stanford or Cal Berkley could hold up an expansion process that includes Texas Tech and Okie State.

Getting Texas may be enough to convince the entirety of the conference to go along with expansion. But then again, Colorado left the Big 12 for a reason, and a big part of its decision to do so was Texas' bullying attitude. At this stage, Texas seems pretty wedded to the Longhorn Network, and I don't understand how that meshes with a move to the Pac-10. Forget Colorado's objection to such a setup. I can't imagine USC, UCLA, and Stanford permitting the Longhorns to come on Board with its own network. I'm a bit skeptical of the stated demand for a Longhorn Network to begin with, but if Texas is convinced it can work, I'm not sure why, from its perspective, moving to the Big 12 would be better than independent status in the long run. And if Texas isn't part of a package that includes the likes of the Okie schools and Texas Tech, why in the world would the Pac-10 go that route? For instance, wouldn't Mizzou, with its superior academic record and the St. Louis and Kansas City markets, actually be a better fit than any of those other schools in many respects?

This "Big 12 teams to the PAC 10" expansion theory has a lot of holes in it, in my IMO. But many of you guys may be more knowledgeable on this topic than me. It still seems to me that if mega conferences are the way of the future, the Big Ten, with its CIC and conference network, will be the catalyst.

A lot of it really has to do with football credibility. The Pac 12 did not really gain much in the area of prestige with Colorado and Utah. Colorado was briefly good in the 90s, and Utah has built a decent program in a mid-major conference, but the only real gain was the ability to have a championship game. Scott needs to score a marquee program this time. Anything else will be a falure for him. Let's face it. BYU is not going to get a Pac-whatever invite, because of the religious affiliation. They just aren't going to come out and say it. Otherwise, Pac would have taken BYU and Colorado State to keep the pattern of two schools for each state. (Northern Cal and Southern Cal counting as seperate states here, I know) That may still factor into the plans if the Tex/TTech/OK/OKState deal falls through. But right now Texas, OK or both is the only thing that is going to make the situation a win for that conference.

The B1G and SEC don't necessarily need another program the caliber of Texas or Oklahoma. The B1G has tOSU, scUM, State Penn and Neb. The SEC has Bama, Fla, LSU and you can make a case for Tenn and Aub too, since all of these teams have had success and are watched by people all over the country. The Pac-12, has USC, which is down, and everyone else. It's really debatable if it is even a better league than the ACC!