Take out teams and replace with programs and then you have it.
Nate should stick to politics, because he obviously doesn’t know much about college football. Kansas State in the Big Ten? Never in a million years. And Missouri in the SEC? I don’t really see that happening either. (And, frankly, I don’t think Pitt is going to be offered a Big Ten invite either). And I won’t even comment on his thoughts of building a Division I football powerhouse out of Georgetown. Really, just silly stuff.
One question I’ve had that I hope someone can take a stab at – assuming it’s a foregone conclusion that the Big 12 is about to die, why is Texas so eager to jump to the Pac 10 instead of the Big Ten? The Big Ten brought in more money for its schools last year than any conference (yes, even the SEC), and surely Texas would only boost that number ever further. I know it’s all about money, but I haven’t figured out how that leads Texas to go west instead of north. I suppose the calculation is that the extant Pac 10 schools, when they form their own network, will bring in more money than the extant Big Ten schools, but I don’t see the basis for that calculation. And I might be biased because I’m a Buckeye, but I see college football being much, much larger in the Midwest than on the West Coast, so I can’t see how a Pac 10 network is going to make more money than the Big Ten Network.
So what am I missing? Or is it not about money at all, and Texas is just afraid of the Big Ten and so it wants to head west where it can mop the floor, especially with a crippled USC, that prison school in Eugene, and the perennial underperformers at Cal?
In a story today, Oklahoma’s athletic director Joe Castiglioe (who was Missouri’s AD when the Big 12 was formed) said the Big 12’s revenue-sharing plan was based on TV appearances. By contrast, the Big 10’s plan is oriented toward an equal split among its members.
In 2009, every one of Texas’ games was telecast either nationally or regionally. By contrast, Nebraska (which won the Big 12 North Division) had only three games telecast. Under the Big 10 formula, Nebraska and Texas would have gotten an equal split of TV revenues.
I’m guessing the Pac-10’s revenue formula will benefit Texas having every game on TV. By contrast, Nebraska stands to benefit from the Big 10’s equal-share formula. Plus, Nebraska will likely get more TV exposure in the Big 10. Texas already has all the TV exposure they can use.
ETA: A Pac 10 Network that includes the states of Texas and California will have more potential viewers in those two states alone than the Big 10 Network has in toto.
I cut a lot of that post. But I completely agree…what the hell has the PAC-10 done recently that makes everyone want to join? Seriously, you’ve got one program, USC, which is now out for two years in the bowl games. This could be a 10 year rebuild there. If Texas joins the PAC-10, then they dominate the entire conference. That’s fine, but I can’t see the TV numbers being all that great. Texas-Oregon State? Who cares? Texas-Washington? Really? The PAC-10 outside of USC is a nothing football conference.
Texas would be much better off in either the Big 10 or the SEC. Football and basketball. Big-10, you’ve got UT-OSU (who’ve had some great games), UT-Penn State, UT-Michigan (if they come back); SEC, you’ve got UT-Alabama, UT-LSU, UT-UT, UT-Florida. Sure, the competition is tougher, but you can schedule absolute nobodies in the non-conference schedule, and point to the conference for the strength of schedule.
I would guess the draw of the Pac-10 is basically everything EXCEPT football–good basketball conference, very good academics, and they are among the best in the springtime sports (baseball, swimming & diving, volleyball).
Maybe unequal revenue sharing is the key factor, but I’m still not buying it, because I doubt the Pac 1* network will be as popular/lucrative as the BN. I just don’t see many people raising a clamor for the Pac 1 network to be added to their cable package as was the case for the B*N. But that’s just biased conjecture on my part.
And the calculation isn’t whether there are more people in Texas and California combined than in the Big Ten states (there are actually more people in the Big Ten states, albeit barely, and throwing in the other Pac states tips the balance away from Big Ten country). Texas is a wash; the question is whether there are more people in Pac 10 country or Big Ten country. Counting Colorado and Nebraska, there are ~10 million more people in Big Ten country than in WA, OR, CA, AZ, and CO. So that can’t be it. So I’m still thinking Texas must be afraid of playing some smashmouth, three yards and a cloud of dust type football 
The main drawback to the Pac-whatever is the time zone. Unless and until Pac-whatever teams schedule games before 9 Central they go unnoticed in this house and I would expect thousands of homes like mine. Putting Central time teams in the conference is a way to let TV revenues from games people watch to spread around to the teams that only the West Coast residents get to see in the hours most people watch football. The push to get Texas and others in that time zone is for TV audience.
You can’t fool Mother Nature though. The games are going to need to be on when folks watch TV.
Yeah!
But, on another whine/gripe, a lot of people in OK have complained in the past few years about games being way too early (11:00am), so maybe somewhere in there is a decent compromise.
Except for certain big national audience draw games, I like to watch my college football in the afternoons. Not before lunch or after my late night swim.
I would like to find a site with cites about what matchups draw the most national attention. Anyone?
Such a cite from a site would be fun reading. I watch as many games as are available in this market and that’s predominantly SEC stuff. After I focus on SEC games, I look to the Top 25 and who they may be playing outside the SEC. I may not catch every Thursday or Friday game but I start with the earliest Saturday morning game (usually 11:00 here) and stay with them (a minimum of four complete games and whatever I can glimpse with PIP and switching channels during commercials) until the early evening games (6-ish or 7-ish) have been completed – unless I fall asleep before then. It’s rare I will even start watching a game starting later than 10. That means I will automatically miss some West Coast or Mountain time games.
I rarely watch replays unless the game involved has been touted as special or “early classic” or whatever. (Or when the team didn’t have a regular time slot because of the strength of schedule thing or whatever, and replay is all that’s available for it.)
And it’s not just a population thing with the Pac-whatever. I know millions of people live there. It’s just a national TV audience thing.
Maybe we could do our own poll here. Somebody?
I made a big long post and then the project I’m running in the background for work crashed spectacularly and took it down. So, instead, a run-down of the wild unfounded predictions I made for three years out in college sports. It’s amazing how once the ball started rolling on everything, the repercussions were vast. Even my own little school which plays no football and is in a third-tier league stands to be affected…
Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC. The fan bases work. The football would be explosive, and Texas and Oklahoma basketball would be a shot in the SEC’s arm. Everyone is saying Oklahoma has already agreed on going to the Pac-10, but I’m not buying it. They won’t go without Texas, and I don’t see them going. But with the Big XII crumpling around them, they need out.
That leaves the Pac-10 scrambling for team #12. Another Big XII castaway looks like a decent choice, and Texas A&M looks like a winner. But the Texas state legislature could block that move because they don’t want the ‘Horns and the Aggies split up. I think it might fall to Oklahoma State. They’ve got big-time donor cash and they want to move up in the world. And a world without having to run through Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska for a BCS ticket looks right up their alley. Cowboys meet the Coasters.
Now with the Big XII all shot to pieces, the teams left are going to be sweating bullets. There are two teams in particular I think will find a home quickly. Kansas is the obvious one: the Big East will take them in a heartbeat. While they’re at it, they might as well take K-State too. But then Big East basketball will have an unwieldy 18 teams, and I think two of the non-football schools are going to face the chop. There are going to be some very nervous folks around DePaul and St. John’s. They may drop into the Atlantic 10…and then some A-10 teams might drop into the Metro Atlantic or a similar league.
That leaves Baylor, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Missouri. Hmm. A&M and Missouri are the hot tickets left. Maybe, in fear that the SEC might go on another poaching run, the ACC will take them as insurance. TAMU’s $5.1 billion endowment makes them a safe investment, and Mizzou, like OK St., is flush with donor dollars. Yes, that makes the ACC a mess, but at the moment, a mess is what we’ve got. Baylor, Iowa State, and Tech will go to the Mountain West, which looks like it’s a demotion….
…but it’s not. The Mountain West will become the next BCS conference, because it solves a lot of headaches for college football. It will stop the nagging by BYU, Boise State, TCU, and others that they don’t get a shot. And it brings a lot of markets ignored by the BCS to the table, without losing anything in return. In time the Mountain West might pare itself down or add more teams to be seen as more legitimate, but with the recent addition of Boise State and by adding the three Big XII castoffs—especially Texas Tech, which has looked dangerous of late—they’ll be more than worthy of the automatic BCS bid.
So IMVHO the upshot of it all is than in three years the Big XII will be no more, no teams will drop out of BCS conferences, and some interesting teams like BYU, Boise State, Utah, and TCU will join the BCS fold. The SEC becomes even more of a monster conference than it already was, and the Big Ten, which looked like it was running the show, actually seems to be kind of quiet. But they’re keeping their powder dry for the next BCS conference implosion…the ACC.
Missouri is in full blown panic mode right now and as others have said, they overplayed their hand big time. Missouri thought they would be a lock since the Big 10 claims that academic standards are the first consideration and then comes revenue potential. :rolleyes:
Silly Missouri. 
I just have to share this MSPaint summary of the conference realignments.
Meanwhile, there are reports that the Big 12 may stay together after all. So, Chip Brown is saying Texas is staying with the Big 12, possibly recommitting as early as today.
How about baseball? I hear he may know a little about baseball.
I would never question Nate about anything at this point.
I know I’m addressing a fait accompli, but what was this comment about? Nebraska athletes have been named Academic All-Americans more often than those of any other school. I’ll admit that my alma mater’s academic standard isn’t what it could be, but Nebraska is one of 63 North American universities in the AAU, which is probably as good a benchmark as any for an institution’s credibility. By way of comparison, 8 of 11 Pac10 schools (including Colorado) are AAU members (all but Oregon St., Arizona St., and Washington St.) and 7 of 8 Ivy League schools are in the fold (all but Dartmouth). With Nebraska, all 12 of the new “Big 10” (or whatever they call themselves) are going to be AAU members; that’s unique among athletic conferences.
Texas reportedly is staying put.
The article says Texas is content with a 10-team conference, but I have to wonder if they won’t try to pick up a couple of teams to replace Nebraska and Colorado. What colleges might be interested?
Utah and Boise state are deperate to get into an automatic bid conference, but neither really have much of a crowd/TV audience draw.
Also consider that Boise State just jumped to the Mountain West, likely with the hopes of a BCS bid from that conference (between BSU, TCU and Utah they have a decent case).
That said, poaching TCU could work (tight alignment and former conference-mates with the other Texas schools, although their basketball is probably not competitive enough). Memphis would also be an interesting possibility, although the academic/recruiting violations would probably keep me away. Tulsa maybe? An MVC team or two?
I’m not sure how a 10-team conference will be competitive in the era of larger conferences, but you could also say that there are now fewer people to share the pie (Nebraska and Colorado weren’t really bringing in viewers I don’t think).
Hey, at least they can call themselves the New Big Ten. 
Yeah, yeah, I know, but UNL has had poor self esteem since the 70’s*. A rejection would have really twitted them. A merely drawn out process would have had the regents sweating bullets, Tom Osborne pleading for calm, and regular people writing angry letters to the Journal Star.
With this smooth acceptance, it’s just going to be another hot, muggy Nebraska summer.
*I think it was the Husker’s 74 loss to Wisconsin that started the whole problem. I remember pointing at the vanquished #4 rated team and laughing. I suppose now they’ll be after some sort of revenge for that humiliation.
It seems that Utah to the Pac-10 is a mere formality at this point.