[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

the former big 12 schools would have been in a division w/ arizona and arizona st.

ut, ttech, atm, ok, ok st, az, az st, colorado. thats 7 games right there. the only extra travel to the west coast would have been maybe 1-2 road trips to the west coast. remember that the west coast schools would also have to travel to tx/ok/colorado...

im sure this problem will reemerge 10 yrs down the road when another school threatens to bolt

 

Thats what its all about. The bcs gives over 20m to the confernce for each team in a bcs bowl if I'm noy mistaken. The team going probably gets a bigger share.

 

Son, I am disappoint.




(seriously, i was hoping for more rugby via pac10 goodness)

 

Longhorns wanted to stay in a weaker conference so they'd have a better shot year after year of getting to the title game.

 

The weaker conference you refer to is still better than the Pac 10 is without them...

 

So... does this mean Nebraska and Colorado have to pay an exit fee? If so, I could see Colorado at least reconsidering.

 

you can also argue that atm wasnt ready to step out of ut's shadow...

 

A conference with Texas, OU, OSU + USC, Oregon, OState is tougher than the Big 12 as it currently exists. And now with no conference title game, that's one less tough game on the schedule.

 

Okay... the Big 12 is inferior to a conference that doesn't exist. Cool... The Big 12 is also better than one that does, the Pac-10. USC can get into a title game whenever it wants. So can OU and Texas.

 

Winner= UT. It was assumed they were working from a position of low leverage since they were the ones being pulled by all sides. But INDIVIDUALLY they showed they have clout to make good for themselves

Winner= Baylor. If football history and success is 75% of the school credentials in play, Baylor gets twice the money for merely existing.

Possible loser = ATM.

If ATM was its own individual college not tied into Texas like Nebraska is, they'da probably taken the SEC bid.

 

Of course, Nebraska had no real ties to Texas...like being in the same state where you have to worry about the Legislature (which had already scheduled hearings on this for Wednesday). Not exactly the same situation.

I still maintain that all five schools should have gone to the Pac 10 alliance.

 

Give it a few more years. It's possible most of the remaining teams become complete jokes in football and this 10-team Big 12 ends up dissolving anyway. But if they could snag Arkansas and grab another decent school, there is long-term hope for the conference. I'm not sure I see it surviving with just 10 teams.

 

A&M on the rise simply because of recruiting? LOL, yeah right, they usually are rated high in regards to recruiting classes, but as usual, TAMU can't put it together and do something with the talent. That's why I wouldn't put too much into recruiting classes rankings, but I do hope A&M can put it together one day.

 

No, I clearly stated they are on the rise recruiting wise. The new regime has done a better job in that regard.

 

I agree, but the things is, they usually have consistent recruits (as far as rankings go), but they can never put it together to have good seasons (or even A good season.)

 

This is where a lot of people do not realize exactly how bad Fran was. Yeah, he had a top 15 recruiting class, but he recruited 11 WRs and one OL. This is where class rankings can be very misleading. It is average number of stars per player and number of players. It has zero to do with whether positions of need are addressed with quality talent.

It has taken Sherman his entire tenure to get to where the OL and DL have a little size and some depth...and these are freshmen and sophomores. It will take another few years of good, balanced recruiting to start to turn this thing around.

Except for QB, the cupboard was pretty bare when Sherman hit College Station.

 

PAC 10 football is not that bad. The conference Sagarin rankings historically have them on par (and arguably above) the Big 12.

People like to say it's USC and nothing else - but USC has had a lot more trouble in conference than out.

I think it is a more balanced conference than the Big 12. The Timezone hurts us a lot. Instead of getting much-deserved respect as a solid program, a team like Oregon is ridiculed. Partly because no one outside of the West Coast sees their games. A lot of it is "their" fault though. I think things will change now with this new commissioner. He seems to actually care about TV contracts and championship games, etc. The PAC 10 will definitely be getting more exposure now. I would have personally liked the Texas merger myself.

There were rumours of a PAC 10 - BIG 12 pArtnership as regards to scheduling and TV contracts. The blown merger felt more akin to that than a true conference.

 

amen to that.

my UT friends on Facebook are hilarious. "now, i guess we'll just have to play for the national championship every year" boo hoo.

Make no mistake...this was NEVER about academics. It's about money and winning. And UT has both looking good going forward. Academics gets talked about....but there's zero integrity in that.

By the way...for as much as we're dogging the Big 12....i'd be willing to bet A&M has a better decade upcoming on the football field than USC does.

 

Except that one time like, I dunno, 3 years ago when we won 9 games (including Texas) and went to the Holiday Bowl. I mean, we haven't been very successful, but we did have A successful season.

 

exactly. pac-10 does still have oregon, of course, texas might have liked that since they are one school that has more arrests than ut does.