ESPN Reporting PAC10 Expansion (Texas Schools)
If so, I am shocked. Hate the thought of losing Texas!
Hate the thought of losing to PAC 10.
Damn
TX will wreck the P10 just like it did the B12.
This is why the Rose Bowl is the granddaddy of them all, and why the game has to stay exclusive to the Pac 10 and Big 10. Wow.
Nebraska and Missouri.
Hello Nebraska!
Missouri, could you wait outside for just a moment?
are indeed bolting, there isn't much in the way of the Big Ten taking Missouri.
The bitch can wait outside for a minute...
The Big Ten now has it's 12th team and will be eligible for a conference championship game. They don't need to take anybody else at this point. It'll probably happen but I'd be a little nervous if I was Missouri. I'm not sure why both invitations wouldn't have come out at the same time, especially since Mizzou was supposed to be the prize (two big TV markets).
They are waiting to figure out the 14th team before they offer Mizzou. That could be ND or someone else. If the deal isn't right, they don't want to be stuck with 13.
It's not on the site yet...
This is going to shake everything up.
That's mesmerizing
If you read the story on the website (and watch the vids), even ESPN is clear that no one has any info that the B10 has actually offered anyone yet. All of these "welome Nebraska" threads are ahead of themselves.
ahead of themselves on this blog........
I think it is logical to assume that the Big Ten will indeed expand to 16 now, if the OP's post is correct. Taking into account earlier reports that the Big Ten is considering inviting Nebraska and Missouri, the hello posts are warranted.
They may be premature, but they aren't out of line.
According to the FSN Ohio, the Big 10 HAS offered Nebraska, but not Missouri
to put up or shut up ND.
I think ND is still 50/50.
about Nebraska, but nothing about half the Big 12 jumping to the Pac-10. I don't see that as feasible - especially in the case of Texas, which could not possibly be making such a gutcheck decision and ignoring the cash/academic cow in the Big Ten.
Unless Texas was never in the game for the Big10 in the first place, and it was a smoke screen to get other movement.
The Big Ten would be nucking futs if they hyped up Texas as a smokescreen. They are clearly option #1, Notre Dame be damned. Nebraska is a nice prize, but you would HAVE to imagine Jim Delany is pitching the hell out of the Big Ten to Texas right now - and they're listening. And so is Notre Dame to boot.
I think that once the Texas legislature came into the picture and started making demands about additional schools, that was probably the end of the chances of Texas coming to the Big10. Yeah, we'd want Texas, and A&M would be OK, but the Big10 would have no interest in Texas Tech (hence the emails between OSU and UT about the "tech problem"). At that point, further discussions about Texas may well have been to get others to move.
If Delaney could get Texas by themselves, OK, but if not, I'm not sure it's worth it.
both are members of the all important AAU along with NEbraska and Missouri. My Sooners tried to join the AAu back in the early 80's, but that president decided that he wanted to be a US senate instead and didn't make it out of the primary.
PS. holy schnikes.. <-- I miss Dave Shand!
This is the worst title ever.
Why would Texas to the P10 be good news for the B10 and why would Texas make this move so quickly? Why cant Texas take it's time and explore the most profitable possibility?
Texas to the P10 is good because it starts the dominoes falling. Realignment is happening and ND needs to make a decision PDQ. Ultimately the BigTen would like to have ND in the BigTen. Texas is sexy, but ND is the hot girl next door.
No, ND isn't the "hot girl next door". ND is the marginally attractive easy girl down the street. Texas is the hot girl that was totally into us, but we were too scared to ask her out.
Big winner = Pac10, now the strongest conference in the nation
Big loser = Big East/Big 12
Big choker = Big 10, especially if we "replace" Texas with Missouri, Rutgers, UConn or any other fairly weak program. If we land ND...ugh...frankly, fuck ND.
I don't know about the P10 being the best. Right now they really only have USC and Oregon as teams that are almost always good. Oregon St, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, and Wash are a step below, and could get better. Texas and Oklahoma make 4 teams that are usually top 25, and TT and A&M would add some depth. They'll have a bunch of good teams, but still only 4 really good teams. The B10 has OSU, Michigan, PSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa as teams that are almost always good. Nebraska is on their way back, and MSU and NW are getting better. The SEC has Florida, Alabama, LSU, and Georgia as top teams. Arkansas and Auburn are a step below usually. Those will be really good conferences. Obviously if the B10 expand further, Mizzou and ND would make us better overall, but neither is really elite right now. The SEC could raid the ACC. They could potentially have 4 of Miami (YTM), FSU, GT, VT, NC, and Clemson. That would easily put them back as the best conference.
While I take your point, part of what some people miss is that brand equity and prestige are as important as recent football success in terms of how the new conferences are viewed. In that vein, the new PAC10 cannot be beat--USC, OK, UT--just those three teams alone have more combined football legitimacy and prestige than any conference in the country. And Oregon is getting closer.
Regarding the B10, no team in the B10 besides M, OSU and PSU even comes close. And the top three in the new PAC10? Better than our top three IME. However, if we get ND and Nebraska we will be close in my view and I'd agree with you.
The same guy from orangebloods.com was reporting it. To be correct, he said that the 6 schools was likely and that Texas and A&M were going to meet together. Apparently he said Texas tried to keep the Big 12 together. I could see that conversation going something like this:
Texas: Do you want to stay in the Big 12?
Nebraska/Colorado: No.
Texas: Ok then! At least we tried!
Until they put it on espn.com, I won't consider it for realz. If it was guaranteed news, or even close to it, ESPN would put it up there. I did see college football live earlier, though, when they talked about Nebraska to B10 and Colorado losing scholarships due to APR.
ESPN has a regular habit of putting some "analyst" or reporter on television to say something as fact and then not put the same thing up on their website because they cannot verify it. I agree -- wait at least until they put it in print on their website. What is up on the website right now makes it clear no one has any knowledge whether B10 has made any offers.
I just have noticed this discrepancy over time. I think somehow in their minds it is ok to put up an analyst on TV even if he is making shit up (because I guess they can say it was just his opinion) but once they put it as a story on the website they have to take responsibility for it. Or the website story adds a bunch of caveats that the analyst conveniently left out.
In no way was I trying to say they were. I agree with you, and you would think ESPN would put it on the site if it had any shred of truth at all. Even if it didn't, they might put it on the site.
Let's not forget that USC is announcing its NCAA violations/sanctions tomorrow. ESPN is a big USC cheerleader, and may be trying to shield its cash cow from being the complete center of attention.
Oh come on.
ESPN could have some early info, but I don't see any other news outlet reporting the Texas schools to the Pac 10......
They are getting it from orangebloods.com, with their lead blogger talking via phone on sportscenter - they guy called it "breaking news, here on sportscenter first."
Did ESPN also mention Les Miles to Michigan? Ooops.
end up becoming the dismantling of the B12?? Crazy. The B12 had teams in the BCS NC game 4 of the last 7 years and now may be kaput ??? Some ran into the B12 meetings and yelled fire and they panicked.
I think everyone realized that the Big East contained a big heap of who cares, whereas the Big 12 has/had some great programs ripe for the pickin'
I think the answer is the unequal revenue sharing. I do not know the Big East's set up though.
This just in....
The Texas Legislation forced the Pac10 to kick out USC so they can make room for Baylor.
Or maybe I just made that up.
I heard that too!!!! I mean, I read your post outloud.
Please, somebody - WHERE IS JA?
16-team conferences don't work very well. Hard to develop great rivalries and the rotation of playing teams will doom some programs. Arizona and ASU are screwed. You figure the PAC-10 will have a North and South and Texas, A&M, OK, OSU with ASU and Arizona, plus USC and UCLA spells doom for Zona and ASU.
The northern half of the conference would be tough to promote, there's simply not enough people in the Northwest to bring in the $$ for a bunch of almost good enough programs. Oregon is falling apart as we speak and their coach may get canned in another year with all the criminals he has. Oregon State is meaningless and Washington and Washington State are always fighting for Miss Congeniality.
The USC mess may help Stanford, but Texas looks to be the big boy in that conference.
The Big Ten needs another big player to even the playing field and I don't think ND is it. They reportedly said they would join a 12-team conference, but not 14 or 16-team conference. Missouri, Kansas and KSU are really gonna get screwed. I hope the Big Ten goes for Pitt and Syracuse or Maryland. Rutgers is useless.