[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

And you think they would be BETTER OFF in the SEC? I mean the SEC is overrated but overall it has less easy wins than the big 12.

 

I don't know if they would be better off in the SEC, but A&M seems like a very poor fit for the Pac 10. I just don't see it at all. The SEC would be a more natural fit for them.

For that matter, I don't think UT, TT, OU and OSU fit the Pac 10 either. But I suppose if you group them with UA, ASU and Colorado, maybe.

 

Not sure about any by-laws but the Big 12 pretty much dissolved on its own after it was only rumored that NU was going to leave, I think it'd be damn near impossible for it to survive if all the big guns left.

It would definitely make sense for teams like Boise (had they not joined the MWC) and TCU to join since they would get an autobid, but I think too much damage has been done to salvage the conference at this point.

 

The Big Twelve as we know it might dissolve, but does the Big Ten take the name from the Big Twelve?


Question of the day, right there?

 

The Big 12 will only dissolve if the forgotten 5 choose to do that.

I can't imagine that they would.

They have automatic qualification for the BCS for the next few years, and if they choose 3-5-7 replacement schools carefully, they will retain that status past 2013.

They will not lose their automatic NCAA tourney bid, either.

The forgotten 5 will also get 70 million in penalty monies from the 7 traitors.

That right there, in and of itself, is enough reason to keep the conference together (if they dissolve the conference, the penalty is forfeit).

My best guess, the forgotten 5 raid the MWC and cherry-pick CUSA and keep on trucking.

The only way the Big 12 completely disappears is if at least 2 of the forgotten 5 in the Big 12 get invites to other BCS conferences, in which case they will have the 9 votes necessary to dissolve the conference and the Big 12 will be no more.

 

The Big 10 is big on research and academics - that's going to be a major deciding factor. All of its schools are AAU members. They would make an exception for Notre Dame because of all the other factors, but not Tech or Baylor.

 

I'm not sure this is the case. I think with all the re-arranging, the whole BCS bid system will be re-evaluated as far as who gets bids, etc. There's no way it all stays as is if the conferences completely change structure.

There is lots of talk about the Big East offering some combo of KU, KSU, and Mizzou to keep building their power basketball conference, though that might depend on if they lose anyone of their own since they already have 16 members.

 

While this would definitely make sense from a pure football point of view, it is not financially feasible. Texas and OU brought home the bacon for the entire Big 12; even with the 70 million in penalties, it wouldn't be enough to sustain the conference for the long haul.

On top of that, their t.v. deal is up after next season. T.V. money is a HUGE source of revenue for schools and I can't imagine them getting a big enough contract to keep the conference alive financially. The current deal with Texas/OU/A&M is already one of the worst out of the BCS conferences, I can't even guess what it would be like without the big guns. And unfortunately, I don't think the best teams from the MWC and CUSA are enough to overcome the loss of Texas and OU.

 

Are they done adding teams? Weren't they going after Mizzou and Rutgers as well? That would make them the Big 14.

 

That's all well and good, but it's still just conjecture. What we know for sure is how the BCS currently operates and how much money is tied to it. To base decisions, with so many millions of dollars at stake, on the possibility that the BCS will be drastically changed is a fool's gambit for an AD or President.

I've heard that talk too, and while it has some merit to it, the problem is that, obviously, they already have 16 members. So unless the Big 10 goes a'pillaging, the Big East is technically a full boat. Now, if the Big 10 does nab 3 Big East teams and Notre Dame (forming the 16 team Death Star conference), then all bets are off.

 

You're missing the point. The TV money would suck with the loss of UT/TAMU/OU/OSU yes. That is a given. However, that still doesn't give the forgotten 5 any reason to dissolve the conference unless there is a viable alternative, and as of right now, there isn't one. Financial suicide would be throwing away that penalty money and the BCS cash. Dissolving the conference and the remaining 5 going to places like the MWC and CUSA is NOT going to happen. Even if Mizzou were to get an invite to the Big 10/Big East, it still wouldn't be enough votes to dissolve the conference. I repeat, the Big 12 is not going anywhere unless 7 of the remaining 10 members find BCS conferences to go to.

 

I think it would be a fool's gambit for an MWC school to switch to a mess of a conference in the hopes that they'll hold onto a BCS bid for 2 years. We know, at the very minimum, the BCS will be rebuilt in 2 or 3 years, so it would be a very short term decision. Assuming that 7 teams leave the B12, the MWC will be a much healthier conference than the B12. It would make no sense for those schools to ditch the MWC in the hopes that the B12 could be salvaged. It could certainly happen, but I think its more likely that the MWC raids the remainder of the B12.

Agreed - a lot of this depends on what all happens with the SEC and B10 and what secondary things occur from there.

 

Why would the best programs of CUSA and the MWC stay in their respective leagues with lock solid BCS money sitting on the table in the Big 12? What's in it for them? Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mizzou are a HELL of a lot better conference mates than the cellar dwellers of MWC/CUSA. And lets take your hypothetical and say that the BCS is completely overhauled in 2-3 years. What is the downside of having jumped to the Big 12 if that were the case? I see no way they can lose in that scenario. The "new" Big 12 would be a better conference for any of the best MWC/CUSA programs than there current conferences would ever be, even if the BCS changed. The conference would obviously be tied with the Big East for "worst BCS league" out there, but it would still be miles ahead of MWC/CUSA and that is what matters.

New Big 12:

East
KU
KSU
Iowa State
Mizzou
Baylor
Houston
TCU

West
Boise State
Air Force
Colorado State
Utah
BYU
New Mexico
UNLV or Wyoming

 

Simply put - stability. The B12 is not a stable conference. Its TV deal is going to be blown up. It's unclear where it goes or what the next TV deal will be like. The remaining difference in "BCS Money" is only for 2 years or so - and these conference changes won't happen until 2011 or 2012 anyway. These schools are looking at 20 year timeframes, so that's not going to be a deciding factor - by the time the MWC schools merged with the B12, the MWC will almost definitely already have a BCS spot. It's a conference on the way up while the leftover B12 would be a conference on the way down.

Overall, the Big12 schools need the MWC more than vice-versa. So by inviting those schools, the MWC members control the conference, as opposed to being new entrants into an already established conference run by the old B12 members. In a game of chicken, I think it's much more likely that KU and KSU jump ship than it is that the B12 can go get pieces from C-USA and MWC to all commit to it.

Good thing is that we should know for sure in a week or so.

 

I agree about stability. However, I don't see many stable options, period. None of the crap conferences are stable. That's how life is on the bottom. Trust me, I would know. But if I'm an AD/President, I'm thinking "What is my BEST option right now?" Can you think of a better option than the one I've laid out? You really think the forgotten 5 (I love that term, can you tell?) would accept invites from the MWC and CUSA rather than try to reform their league if the Big East never came calling? I find that hard to believe. The only real advantage for the CUSA/MWC members is, like you said, having it be *their* conference and not someone else's. In the end though, I say money talks. The "new" Big 12's TV deal would still beat out the CUSA/MWC TV deals, I guarantee you. It would be a very interesting power struggle in a "new" Big 12 between the 5 Big 12 holdovers and the MWC invitees.

I think it's funny how we have such opposite view points on this. You looking at it from an idealist/theorist standpoint, and me from the pragmatist/realist standpoint. Probably has a lot to do with the schools we've affiliated with and the experiences they've had through conference shifts.

 

I still don't get going to the Pac 10. I mean, Big 10, maybe. The pac 10 is the conference nobody watches because of the time slot. I guess the money is the power, but tamu to sec makes alot of sense. Staying in the big 12 makes alot of sense also.

 

Very true - and really, at the end of the day, most of the schools end up in a merged B12 and MWC in both our scenarios. I'll be curious to see how this plays out. I hope, at the end of this, someone does a FOIA request on all these schools and writes a book on all the things happening in the background.

 

OK well I'm hearing conflicting things now on the Big 12 bylaws.

Some have told me it takes 9 votes to dissolve the conference, now I'm hearing it only takes a simple majority of 7.

The 7 obviously being NU, CU, UT, OU, A&M, OSU, and TTU.

If that is the case, then yeah, the Big 12 is toast and the leftovers will go to the MWC.

So much for my vision of a new Big 12

 

I'm not picking on you when I say this, but at some point it needs to be said.

I'll bet anyone on this board a couple of beers that no one in the Big 12, save maybe Iowa State and Baylor, ends up in the MWC or CUSA. The media keeps puppeting that line because it's a worst-case scenario, and that sells papers, but it's not reality. First of all, I still have a LOT of reason to believe Missouri goes to the Big Ten. The conference has said all along it would go in stages, and obviously Missouri isn't a Nebraska or Texas historically that would go in that first wave.

But it's not just Mizzou - I'd lump Kansas and K-State into that same group. No, they're not in that first group to move. But when the Pac 10 goes to 16, the Big Ten will do the same, for competitive reasons. I suspect Mizzou will be among that group. If not? Well, if Mizzou isn't in that group, the only other logical candidates are schools from the Big East and ACC - see Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland, Va Tech, etc. So, if the Big Ten goes that route, then you'll have vacancies in those conferences.

In addition, you can expect the SEC to expand, if/when the Pac 10 and Big Ten both go to 16 teams. They might look at Mizzou/Kansas, or if they don't, they'll look at teams from the Big East/ACC - thus creating more vacancies there. Yes, it's logistically slightly further than the MWC, but not much - and the enormous revenue difference and BCS standing would more than make up for it.

For whatever reason, hysteria sells stories, and people love parading the idea that there's just one wave of this. There isn't. In the case of Missouri and the Kansas schools, you're talking about prominent universities that are either the center of a very populated state or in a major metro, with solid traditions in both football and basketball. I don't know 100% if they make it into one of the big three (Big Ten/Pac 10/SEC), though I suspect at least two will - but I do know that I'd almost bet my life savings that none are MVC or CUSA bound. Feel free to hold me to that.

 

Coming from a UT alum, I would agree with you that Tech, OU, and OSU don't fit the culture of the California Pac-10 schools. However, Texas most certainly does. It's a liberal school with strong academics. Plus, there are plenty of Longhorn alumni on the West Coast and the Arizona area.

In fact, I'd argue Texas has much more in common culturally with the Pac 10 schools than they do with most if not all of the Big 12 North.