PAC10 Commissioner Larry Scott to Big 10's Jim Delaney: "I drink your milkshake.'
This is my synopsis of the process of conference expansion.
Jim Delaney: We are going to study expansion of the Big Ten. It will be a thorough and deliberative process that may last 18 months. We will begin the process, involve the member schools, develop several committees, and move forward deliberatively.
Larry Scott: Hmm.
Jim Delaney: Mary Sue and Gordon, kindly contact Texas whilst I have a brandy with Jack over at Notre Dame. Cocktails are scheduled in four weeks time. You may report back then.
Larry Scott: Where did I put that number for the Texas AD?
Jim Delaney: We are in the proverbial catbird's seat! Smithers, stop that infernal babbling and pour me my brandy!
Larry Scott: If I can get Texas I can get the whole B12 South and go to 16 teams at once.
(Media reports circulate about schools discussing their options)
Jim Delaney: we are following our process, which if necessary can be accelerated from 18 months to an exceedingly brisk one of 12 or perhaps even 10. I'm waiting to hear back from Texas and then watch out!
Larry Scott (reporting back to the school Presidents): It's done. Texas, A&M, Tech, OK, OK St., and Colorado will join. Our projected revenue will skyrocket with the new contract, and we'll have 3 of the top 6 football programs in the country.
(Media reports that PAC 10 will expand by 16 teams)
Jim Delaney: Wait, what?
Larry Scott: If you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. And my straw reaches acroooooooosssssssss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake....
So this isn't entirely fair, but close enough in my view. If ND comes aboard along with Nebraska, then history will revise this view. If not, it's pretty accurate IMO.
I would imagine you would feel silly if Texas wanted to keep the Big12 together (by say, adding TCU and Utah) and the Pac10 added Boise State to make 12.
It appears that the only reason that Texas is going to the Pac 10 is because the Pac 10 was willing to invite Texas Tech. The Big Ten, meanwhile, was never going to for academic reasons. If Texas goes to the Pac 10, then its because the Pac 10 had better cards.
conference is better (inevitably a football discussion) and the PAC 10 is clearly better, at least we'll be able to say "Ya, but Texas Tech is a mediocre academic institution! Boom GPA'd!"
All sarcasm aside, I understand and am in sympathy with your point. But I don't see it as compelling when the subject is football--which is what this is about, football, prestige, and of course dollars. Like it or not.
EDIT: if Brian's recent post has any truth, I may want this post to self-destruct.
Yeah, I guess the subject is football (i.e, football blog, BigTen is a sports conference, etc.), but I feel like you're seriously underestimating the impact and weight the academic and general culture/institution of each school and conference plays into these decisions. Delany and the athletic directors can do whatever they want, but NONE of it goes through w/o the approval of the real decision makers...the predisents, regents, etc. of each university. Those people obviously care about athletics and the money it brings in, but that all comes second to how this conference realignment will effect the university's ability to obtain grants for research, bolster academic progress at the grad school level, etc. This is why the SEC isn't that big of a player in all this. It is such a HUUUUUGE step down academically that no semi-reputable school would join 12 tier 3 academic schools (save Vandy) just to play some good football.
The only reason UT and A&M would go to the Pac-10 instead of the Big 10 would be if 1) UT doesn't like equal revenue sharing (umm, no kidding) or 2) The Big 10 won't invite them because they have a Tech problem. In either case I'd rather let the Pac -10 have them than have to deal with #1 or #2 and appreciate Delaney not whoring us out like the Pac 10 is doing. We have standards and we're going to stick to them...
Who would be 3 of the top 6 programs? Texas is the only obvious one to me.
I'm guessing Texas, Oklahoma, and USC (before today)
Well I see Texas, but yeah, not USC for a while at least, and Oklahoma is good on the field, but no one seems to be dying to have them in their conference.
Texas, Oklahoma, and USC before the debacle of the sanctions
EDIT: This is me seconding bwlag
I dont see the appeal of going to the pac-10. Other than maybe a few usc games they dont seem to have as much exposure except on the west coast. How many people actually stay up until 2am est to see the end of a washington st game?
This entire scenario appears, at least to me, as if the Big Ten made the same mistake that Michigan did in their pursuit of Les Miles.
1) We let our intentions known to the world
2) Played nice and gave everyone some breathing room
3) Watched someone swoop in aggressively and force a change
Result; Texas isn't coming because we didn't anticipate a swift move by the Pac 10 and we have Rich Rod because we we let LSU off the hook by playing nice.
This has nothing to do with Rich Rod just a statement of fact that he wasn't the first choice, but is who we ended up with because we are slow to act.
"Good things come to those who wait, but only what's left behind by those who hustle"
The guy has already proven to be a shrewd, calculated businesman. He knew what he was doing when he "let the BigTen's intentions be known". Maybe he wanted to see everyone's cards? Maybe he wanted to create a little chaos to force everyone's hand knowing he had already positioned himself and the conference in the best position possible? Remember, NONE of this happens if Delany keeps his mouth shut on our expansion plans. If he doesn't say anything, what incentive do Texas, ND, Nebraska, or anyone really have to even entertain the idea of jumping to the BigTen?
Guess he isn't the most bold commissioner now, take that!!!
