[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

When they talk about academic integration, what does that mean/refer to exactly?

 

THere's a consortium of Big 10 U's plus U Chicago that pools/shares resources like Library, research etc.

 

Max, i enjoy the fire you're bringing to tthis :grin: . I think this is a huge point and its a big reason why mack doesn't want tp leave. It hard packing up a 100 or so people, mostly underage a that, and traveling 2000 miles. I mean the responsibility of watching over those kids is amazing. Not to mention, the travel cost of the non revenue producing sports like womens volleyball and such. I dont understand because I'm just a dumb owner of a trucking company, but how does nebraska leaving and colorado leaving blows up the big 12? Like I said before, Utah and even CSU would be great replacements for the huskers and buffs. Texas and Ok are still heavyweights in college football and can get a great package for the conference. Not only that, they already have an auto bcs bid and have more of a chance to get that by staying put.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276668

AUSTIN, Texas -- University of Texas regents will meet next week to decide whether the Longhorns will remain in the Big 12 or switch to another conference, setting the table for an unprecedented realignment of power conferences in college sports.

Texas holds significant sway amid a changing landscape that has seen Colorado move to the Pac-10 and Nebraska reportedly bolting to the Big Ten in successive days.

The athletic director of Texas' longtime interstate rival, Oklahoma said if the Longhorns were to announce they were committed to staying in the Big 12, the other 10 teams left would likely remain, too.

"Behind the scenes, we're talking about all the different kinds of strategies and plans that would prove that point," Joe Castiglione told The Oklahoman on Thursday.

One source within the Big 12 told ESPN's Joe Schad on Friday that Baylor, Kansas and Oklahoma have been gathering information about the fiscal viability of keeping the conference alive with 10 teams. In that scenario the conference would sacrifice a conference title game. They are exploring the television ramifications as well.

"We have a very, very strong sense from our television partners that the revenue stream would be very, very good going forward," Castiglione told The Oklahoman. "Better than where we are today."

Another source familiar with the Pac-10's plans told ESPN that the SEC's interests in Texas A&M and Oklahoma are "real." Another source within the Big 12 said Texas A&M does not necessarily feel it should be required to be attached to the Longhorns.

The Texas regents announced Friday that they will hold a meeting by telephone Tuesday for "discussion and appropriate action regarding athletic conference membership."

"There's still proof that 11 or 10 teams together can create some significant value. Even more than where we are with 12," Castiglione told the Oklahoma City newspaper.

"Whether we can convince people that staying together is a good option, I don't know."

Castiglione said he continued to work toward a solution to save the Big 12, which he said can still thrive -- in competition and on the balance sheet.

"I understand people are writing this like the ship has sailed and there really isn't any way the Big 12 could stay together," Castiglione told the Oklahoma City newspaper. "I just don't think this is true. I think there's still a way for us to stick together and be viable. Whether we do or not, I don't know."

In addition to Colorado's move, the Pac-10 is also reportedly interested in inviting Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to form a 16-team league.

Missouri was reported to be on the trading block, too, even reportedly prompting the Big 12 to issue an ultimatum that also included Nebraska, requiring the schools to commit to the Big 12 by Friday, with an extension possible through Tuesday.

But the president of the University of Missouri system, Gary Forsee, told reporters Thursday he doesn't feel compelled to "justify our loyalty"

"I don't think we need to justify our history in that regard," Forsee said.

Forsee, speaking for the first time on the conference shuffling, said he decided to speak on the subject after Colorado announced its move to the Pac-10.

"Our curators are very interested in those developments, very interested in these facts as they appear. As you might imagine we won't participate in feeding continued speculation of what else might happen around conference realignment or in the Big 12 for that matter.

"But rest assured that our Board of Curators, all our administrators, are on top of these issues."

 

Craig James's new Big 12 (From College football live - made before Boise move earlier today)

Division A: Ark, Bay, Hou, Mizz, OK st.,TCU, SMU, TT

Division B: AF, Boise, Cinci, Ia St., Ka, K St., Lou, Utah

James says this all can happen because the B12 still has the BCS invite. compared it to Big East a few years ago.

 

Agreed. But the more I think about it, there's really no need to rush into anything. As a fan, I want things to be resolved ASAP but there's just too many things to consider when making a move of this caliber.

I'm glad the UT Board of Regents are meeting next week after letting the dust settle a bit over the weekend. I hope A&M does the same since I thought the knee jerk reaction from most A&M fans about going to the SEC was a little much. If they decide to go, that's fine, but it's just way too big of a move to make without taking some significant time for consideration.

 

He is an idiot because Arkansas isn't going anywhere. Although.....they might surprise everybody (0.000000000000000000000001% chance) because the fans of UA hunger for that Texas rivalry still while it is really of no concern for Texas.

 

Agreed...but I still don't get Boise, why rush and do something now? why not wait until the dust settles and get into a bigger conf., but I get why its better to be proactive, but c'mon...

I'm anxious for all of this to get settled, but then again, why rush it...just because CU and Neb left, doesn't mean it's over..IMHO...

 

The travel is a nonissue. Texas already goes on out-of-conference road trips to Wyoming, Ohio State, Hawaii, etc. At most, the football team is talking about ONE west coast road trip per year and one trip to Arizona per year. That's really no different than going to a couple of big 12 north schools every year.

The money made from the move will pay for travel costs for other sports many, many times over.

Sure - they would be replacements, but they would both be downgrades. Why would Texas pick a worse version of what they already have when there are substantially better opportunities out there?

This has nothing to do with being heavyweights in football. Its about marketing, eyeballs, fan support, etc. Combining Texas and California, along with the entire west (with growing populations) is a much bigger market than a bunch of midwest states. California alone is bigger than the entire non-Texas part of the Big12.

 

Which raises the question, what the hell is TAMU thinking?

 

1 - you might want to check your geography

2 -the amount of games they'll have on the west coast is pretty small if the Pac -16 West consists of 6 former big 12 teams and Arizona - in fact it means they'll have 1-2 per year.

Is that really such a big deal?

But anyway, I fail to see a huge logistical difference between flying to Lubbock, and flying an extra 1.5 hours to Tuscon. It's the same exercise, and it's not a linear cost relationship.

 

I like that idea...

 

Because no big conference wants Boise. They bring NOTHING to the table that the conferences are looking for. People need to stop viewing this from a "how good is the football team" perspective.

 

I think A&M to the SEC makes a lot of sense. Whether they end up there, I have no idea. But it fits in so many ways:

1. It lets them have independence from the "little brother" mentality of being always associated with UT.

2. Culturally, they fit perfectly in the SEC - much more so than the Pac10.

3. Plenty of money to gain from joining the SEC.

I am a little surprised that they are doing it, given the academic side of things. But it does appear A&M is being driven a lot more by the athletics than all these other schools. From a purely athletic perspective, this lets A&M recruit Texas kids who want to play against the SEC.

 

Is Boise really that bad? I thought their enrollment was skyrocketing. Is Tech all that much better? I don't know much about Boise.

 

This. There's so much talk about how Boise State gets screwed over but when there's finally a chance to maybe move into a big conference, they jump to the Mountain West right off the back. I'm not saying they would have gotten an offer for sure, but if they would have waited a week or so, there's a possibility that 3 BCS conferences will be looking for teams. I agree with Major that some conferences may not even want them, but I think you should at least leave yourself some options.

Something inside me thinks that Boise really has no intention of moving into a BCS conference. I mean, they are very successful in beating up on smaller teams during the regular season and playing BCS buster afterwards.

I really just don't want to hear how it's unfair that Boise gets left out of National Championship or BCS Bowl games.

 

Teams that don't bring revenue or academic prestige and win championships (and, even worse, are located in BFE) are the WORST kind of conference members.

 

a lot of the big schools need money and if a school can't offer that, expanding is pointless

 

Almost every BCS conference has 1 team less valuable than Boise though. At least you'd think. I mean Iowa State?

 

there was a great article posted about year ago about the misconceptions about how many of these schools make money. it was the article on Mack Brown's contract I think and why Texas can afford it and other "big" schools can't