Thanks Pac-10 (now Pac-11)
I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
i like this picture because he's about to shoot a planet-destroying laser out of his mouth
Some horse-holding may be in order in case anyone is printing up huge quantities of Pac-16 t-shirts. These reports come from a television station and a guy in Indianapolis radio and are about conference expansion should therefore be taken with a grain of salt large enough to have moons, but they appear to be independently-sourced claims that Texas and Texas A&M may be heading Midwest instead of just West.
High level sources in multiple conferences have told KCTV5 that Texas and Texas A&M are looking to move to the Big Ten Conference and have petitioned for membership, while the University of Oklahoma is planning on petitioning the Southeastern Conference to become a member of its conference.
Texas Tech can pound sand, according to KCTV.
Kent Sterling, the Indiana radio guy does have an extensive newsy background, FWIW, but his site's report is way fuzzier and it's posted by Pauly Balst, whose bio reads "Pauly Balst has a very solid reputation and track record in speculative journalism and for-profit amatuer [sic] athletics." This is not reassuring. Anyway:
College Station, Texas, based sources close to Texas A&M confirm the scenario of Texas A&M, Texas and Nebraska joining the Big 10, bringing the total to 14. … Sources also confirmed the rift with Texas Tech and Baylor is that “UT and A&M have joined together in this decision”. By adding this trio, UT does not “go to war alone in a new conference” when ongoing issues arise.
"Confirm the scenario"? What does that mean? That could be talking. It could be a D&D meeting. I'm not putting a ton of stock into that, but it's out there.
Meanwhile, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is sounding less imperial:
“I’d say that (having an 11-team conference) is a possibility,” Scott said.
He also said that no assurances and that no invitations have been issued to any other Big 12 schools, including Texas and Texas A&M, whose athletic directors met on Thursday in Austin to discuss their future.
“There are several different scenarios,” Scot siad. “There is no defined timetable” for further Pac-10 expansion.
Colorado snapping up the Pac-10 invite and thereby bouncing Baylor may have given the Big Ten the wedge it needs to crowbar Tech off the Texas schools everyone wants, in which case thanks Baylor.
This post's information value will self-destruct in ten seconds.
(HT: Aaron and Damon Lewis.)
Thanks Pac-10 (now Pac-11)
The only thing I take out of all this stuff is this: the truth is that nobody knows what the hell is going on right now and that despite the fact that it looks like things might be spiraling towards a definitive conclusion now that the Colorado domino has fallen, truth be told everything is written in shimmery ether right now.
Has the quality of journalism went down lately or is it just me? There just seem to be a lot of sources that don't have any names.
No, that's how journalism is in general, it's just that you're probably reading a lot more news right now and you notice the "anonymous source" more often.
Or it's because back in the day an anonymous source was actually identifiable but not necessarily disclosed in print for a number of reasons. These days, and with compressed news cycles, people can just make a bunch of shit up and call it anonymous.
See Kirk Herbstreit and Les Miles coming to coach U-M. Or now that I think about it, just about any ESPN breaking news story these days has been complete bullshit.
Youtube won't enbed... but All is Well?
"As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!"
edit: subtracted an "e" from Delaney in order to be in full compliance.
Nice way to stick with the theme. I completely agree with your point. Larry Scott was hired to bring change to the Pac 10 and make it more relevant. At first blush, he seems to be doing just that. Howeva, I think he is a newb that is out of his league (in this case the WTA), and doesn't understand the maneuvering required to make change happen.
Delany is looking like a mad schemer orchestrating the realignment.
Larry Scott is just a butterfly flapping his wings, whereas Delany is controlling the weather.
I am sticking to my story. Texas gains little by going to the Pac 10, and much more by going to the Big 10. They are joining A&M because they need them politically to make this work. I am starting to believe that Texas's first choice is the Big 10, now that the Big 12 is dissolving.
Texas' interest in the Pac-10 was there partly because they're a decent enough conference with some academic strengths and partly because they had enough room and low enough standards to take the whole family in.
When something apparently changed so that the little sisters didn't have to go, they may be heading back to the land of massive television contracts and research dollars. (And full revenue sharing. Don't forget that. Go Texas, bring home some BCS bacon for everyone!)
awwwwwwwww SIC 'EM!
... to post an article about Nebraska joining the Big 10?
Texas Tech can pound sand
Truer words have never been spoken
Lubbock is like Columbus lite.
This situation is turning into pure insanity. Huge twists and turns at seemingly unlikely moments. I don't know what to believe. Please let this end soon with a definitive scenario.
it would not surprise me if conference expansion was based on D&D dice rolling
Settlers of Catan.
While I love that game, there is no conquering, so I am going to have to disagree.
All your teams are belong to us.
I will trade you two brick and one sheep for two strong Texas schools.
Oh, and you better do it, because in case you haven't noticed, I control all the brick.
What they're really doing-
And I say it with love...
But I don't want either Texas or A&M in the Big Ten. I think it's nuts and it won't last if they do it.
Nebraska, Missouri, and Notre Dame make a hell of a lot more sense to me.
Missouri > Texas? Huh?
Texas is a great football team and a great school but I don't think that is sufficient for B10 admission; geography should play into it and whether or not the school fits the B10's identity/persona. The idea is not that Missouri is better than Texas in absolute terms, but they are a better fit for the B10.
Austin isn't in the panhandle of Texas or worse...in west Texas. If you want to play the culture card, I don't think it's going to fly.
UM was a University (1837) when Texas was part of Mexico (1845).
i think that is a pretty good start.
Uh... wrong? Texas was its own Republic in 1837 (1836 was the year of independence).
This University began in 1817 with a legislative act that established the Catholepistimiad in Detroit. In 1821 the name was changed to the University of Michigan and in 1837 Ann Arbor was chosen as its permanent site.
1817 - Legislative act establishes the Catholepistemiad, or University of Michigania.
1821 - The university adopts the official name of "The University of Michigan" and reorganizes to form a board of twenty-one Trustees, including the Governor (chosen from the faculty).
1837 - Ann Arbor chosen as permanent site for the University of Michigan by a March 20 state act. 40 acres are given to the University by the Ann Arbor Land Company.
1837 - First meeting of the board of regents in Ann Arbor on June 5. The board itself was established by a state act on March 18, 1837.
Established as a university in 1817. Current name established in 1821. Moved to A2 in 1837.
I would love to see a maize shirt with blue block letters that read CatholepistiMiad
nice work MGoShoe
Do people realize this isn't a fantasy football league or a video game? Sure, that would be fun to throw together in NCAA 2011 but realistically how do 2 Texas schools fit into the Big Ten? They don't.
University of Texas does. A lot. Austin is Ann Arbor with nicer weather.
Columbus isn't anything like Ann Arbor. Does that mean we should split the conference?
Right on...Minneapolis and Chicago are not State College and Iowa City. "Austin is just like Ann Arbor" is the worst argument in the world that I can think of for Texas in the Big Ten. I'd rather not have Texas around either, frankly, it's definitely not a culture fit. Anyone who thinks Texas culture and Michigan culture are the same is insane.
College Station is State College, but flatter. Same level of road kill.
I've also heard that the legislature may stay out of this round of conference realignment. I find that doubtful as legislatures will find any reason to meddle in things.
It isn't a matter of just getting good or great football teams, there is a lot more to it than that. And yeah, I do think geograph matters and I have always liked the midwestern/Great Lakes character of the Big Ten.
Texas dominated the SWC, the conference failed; then (with the other 3 Texas schools) joined the Big 8, dominated it, and as a result, exploded due to the defections of Colorado and Nebraska.
Call me nuts too, as I don't want that for the Big Ten.
book to come out that details WTF has been going on in these past few days. Whoever pieces that together will get my $19.95 ...
In my mind, these conference offices must look like something on the NYSE trading floor ... or maybe the Merchantile Exchange in Trading Places when all hell breaks loose on Mortimer Duke and Randolph Duke, Jim Delany in the background playing the Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd role. Excellent.
If Delany pulls of the Texas Combo to the B10, can we all vow to spell his name with only one E? I think that's the least we can do for the guy.
but i like transformers too, so i feel compelled to say this is much more like Unicron, the robot plannet that consumes other planets than the Death Star which simply blows them up.
i don't know why a planet would want to change into a robot
It makes me sad that the transformers cartoon movie was so much better than either of the two non-animated movies that were released
No, not THAT! (Get your mind out of the gutter). This-
to have insomnia while living on the other side of the world! If only I could explain the magnitude of insanity this situation is to my English work mates...... This would be a lot more fun if I could discuss this face to face with someone who knew what a Big Ten was.
Texas can GFI. We're secretly gutting the SEC: Bama and Florida are locks to join.
Oh wait. Academics. Nevermind
...were hanging on protection from the legislature. UT and A&M were always going to act in their own self-interest, unless they were forced to do otherwise.
The thing is, joining the Big Ten and the CIC will bring tons of research money to the two larger Texas schools. They won't budge without the legislature's blessing, but when they lay out the financial case, politicians will quickly realize that the state is better off with the research money than without it.
How do you go about building a conference? What is the overarching qualities that are sought? Really it has to be more than are they a good football team and do they have decent academics? If those are the only requirements does that mean we'd take Florida and USC should they become available? This type of expansion overindulgence would just lead to conferences without character and ultimately unsatisfying results.
Alumni base, TV market, and history of the school all play a part, along with academics and athletic success. By any measure, Texas would be a GREAT addition to the Big10.
I guess I don't follow what you mean by the character of a conference ...
I didn't mean they have no "character" as in they are aren't morally fit; I mean more in the "feature used to separate distinguishable things into categories" sense. I think of the B10 as representative of the midwest and Texas representative of the South. Texas very much has its own culture, a GREAT culture at that, but not one that is cohesive with the B10. Nebraska is very much in line with the rest of the B10. Southern Cal fits all the things you just mentioned yet I don't think they fit within the B10 either.
On paper I suppose it looks right but Texas feels wrong; but it looks like I'm alone in that feeling.
Hey, don't you lump Texas in with those yokels in the South. They are much more the Southwest than the South. Sure, the eastern most slivers from Tyler to Beaumont, sure, you can do that, but you can't say Austin or even San Antonio, much less Houston or Dallas are Southern cities. Hell, if you'r talking Texas Tech, you can lump them in with Nebraska and the Great Plains.
And if you're going to lump Nebraska into the Midwest, your flirting with the idea that the Panhandle is almost in line with saying Texas Tech, after it makes it's research jump over the next 10 years, would be Big Ten compatible.
If you want to argue them as being a better fit with the Western states such as Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, sure. Do not make the generalization that Texas is southern. I know this has very little to do with your argument, but calling Texas southern just seems wrong on SO SO SO many levels.
Nebraska is part of the Midwest, except from what people in the Midwest believe, we aren't. Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, maybe Wisconsin I can see as part of a coherent group. Pennsylvania, maybe the western part, but then State College isn't in the western part. Iowa, Minnesota,, they seem more like Nebraska's neck of the woods.
I think we're already past the point of having a conference of all similar schools ... not that a 16-team conference therefore makes sense, but we have several schools that are each a little different in different ways. Nebraska is similar to a number of us in some ways, Texas in some ways, Missouri in some ways, A&M in some ways ... they will fit in just as well as Penn State did at the time.