There have been so many teams announcing they are moving conferences either next year or 2012, that I have completely lost track. Pac… um… 12, Big 12, Big um…10? 12.1?, Big East, WAC, and MWC all are going to experience changes. Can somebody break this Chinese fire drill down for me?
Also, what the hell is the Big Ten going to call themselves after all this?
All I know is that UConn is coming to the SEC. We need the boost in basketball. 
All right, I think I got it. The following is just division 1 football. There would be even more if I included everything.
Colorado Big 12 to Pac 12
Utah MWC to Pac 12
Nebraska Big 12 to Big 10
TCU MWC to Big East
Boise WAC to MWC
Fresno State WAC to MWC
Nevada WAC to MWC
UTSA Southland to WAC
Texas State Southland to WAC
BYU MWC to Independent
That’s ten freakin’ teams! No wonder I couldn’t keep track.
It looks like Central Florida might join the Big East, but no decision yet. There are rumors that Arkansas might jump to the Big 12 from the SEC, but I don’t see that happening.
And as far as the name of the Big Ten, I forgot that they currently have 11 teams (doesn’t anybody major in math up there?) so I am assuming they’re just going to keep calling themselves the Big 10. Which will be odd. The Big 12 will have 10 teams and the Big 10 will have 12. Go figure.
Kinda sucks for Boise State. They try to move to the Mountain West for some better competition in Utah, BYU and TCU, and they all move away the same season leaving nobody to fill the spots but the old WAC teams Boise was trying to get away from.
I’m alright with the new PAC-12. Liked the mega-conference idea with the Big XII better, but I guess Texas hasn’t noticed the writing on the wall yet. Maybe later.
I’d like to see a renewed rivalry between the Big 10 and the Pac 10 (12), but I’m not sure how that would happen. At best you have school-specific rivalries like OSU-USC. Still I’m looking forward to having Nebraska join and having a Big 10 championship game.
The Big Ten will remain “The Big Ten” going forward, Commissioner Jim Delany’s said as much countless times.
They’ve already blown their original deadline for the division names…apparently no one has had an idea that everyone likes yet. My guess is that we get something vague and non-specific and no one will really like (much like the ACC Coastal/Atlantic), but won’t hate as much as naming the divisions after former Michigan and Ohio State coaches. 
Texas has noticed the writing on the wall. The writing on the wall is “money,” and not having to split it equally with Utah and Oregon State. Texas already has their own TV network, and they want to put their games on it. Going to the Pac-16 means they’d be just one of sixteen negotiating a deal with a network and sharing the profits equally.
Instead, imagine in 2016 a new Southwest Conference, organized around Texas and Oklahoma, with the lion’s share of the money going to the big boys. Or imagine Texas as an independent, holding TV rights to all 12 games. Every sports bar in the nation’s gonna cough up to carry the Texas Channel.
I can fervently hope, though the Big East has made it very clear their first choice is to have Villanova step up to I-A.
I don’t know about that. Does every sports bar in Texas and throughout SEC country subscribe to the Big Ten Network? I don’t know for sure, but I doubt it. On that same basis, I’m thinking sports bars throughout the east and midwest could easily forgo the Texas Channel.
If every single Texas game was on there, including the Texas-OU, and the Texas-USC games coming in the future? (In contrast to the B10 network, that almost never has the best games) Well, no not all of them, but a hell of a lot of them would, especially if it was reasonably priced; a Pac-16 network would have to generate 16 times as much revenue as Texas’ own channel to make that a better choice. Unlikely.
Not that I think that is exactly what they’re planning or will do; my point is just that they’re going to do what’s best for them, and attaching themselves to an egalitarian PAC-16 isn’t it.
I suspect the eventual shakeout will be keeping a UT/OU/TAMU conference alive, with the profit-sharing jiggered to give them an even more outsized share.
Or else the SEC goes to 16, and adds UT/OU/TAMU/OSU … because yes, every sports bar in the nation would have that network.
Interesting and amusing: The Big-10 Conference, with 12 teams, will not be allowed to change its name to the Big-12 Conference because that name is taken by a conference who will have only 10 teams. A trade is necessary. Of course, that will be extremely unsavory to traditionalists, but less ridiculous than calling a conference with 10 teams Big-12 and a conference with 12 teams Big-10.
If it comes as part of a sports package, like with my cable company, instead of a la carte, betcha they do.
Personally, I think the Big 10 should change their name to the “Delightful Dozen”
It’s not the Big 10 and it’s never been the Big 10. It’s always been the Big Ten (occasionally nicknamed the Big Eight and Big Nine). It’s a brand first and foremost now, and in the past it was purely a nickname bestowed by the media. The Big 8, Big 12 and Pac 10 are all copy cats. Ironically, The Big Ten didn’t formally adopt the name Big Ten until 1987 and added Penn State in 1990.
Local High School “mega” conferences have frequently used a color to describe the divisions. There are a bunch of them around here with “Red” and “Blue” divisions. It might be interesting if the Big Ten went that direction, I might actually approve of it based on HS football nostalgia. Obviously the colors wouldn’t always fit with the schools being that Michigan and Nebraska and Ohio State and Penn State are in the same divisions if they used Red and Blue, but I’m sure a friendly color could be used. Or screw it, give Michigan the “Blue” and OSU the “Red” and screw the two newbies. Hell, they could steal the NFC North’s gimmick and go with “Black and Blue”.
Down here in Texas the high school conferences only have numbers. Absolutely soulless, and they get shuffled with regularity. If they can’t decide on colors that won’t offend someone, they can always fall back to “District 1” & “District 2”…but then the “District 2” teams would probably feel slighted. 
“Lakes” and “Plains” and some geographical reference to the Big 10.
Call them division “A” and division “1”.
First of all, I assume their opponents are going to have some rights. Perhaps they’d just have exclusivity on their home games.
Second, I don’t think Texas has as much national appeal as you might suspect. Once you get out of Big 12 country, they’re no more important than say Arkansas.
The geographically defensible ones don’t bother me (i.e. MWC to WAC) But Colorado and Utah to the Pac-10 and ESPECIALLY TCU to the Big East DRIVES ME CRAZY!!! Since BC jumped to the ACC, I stopped following them, to the point of UConn becoming the New England b-ball team I follow (Calhoun’s from my rival hometown). Guess we can stop teaching geography in school.
Since we all know that Boston is not on the Atlantic Coast. :dubious: