I called my BU friend as soon as I read this about an hour ago. He said it was news to him...says OSU has made it pretty clear now they do not want to leave the Big 12, and seriously doubted that OU's board of regents was ready to unanimously leave. He said: (paraphrased) "sounds like posturing, because I think we'd have heard more about this if it was truly unanimous. not sure where this is coming from." Obviously, I personally do not have a clue.
Yeah, this report has some holes in it. The biggest, to me, being that if they are all unanimous about this, why wait 2-3 weeks? Just go ahead and meet and apply - we've seen all the hell that can break loose in 2 weeks. So it very well could be a negotiating posture, but I still don't have any idea of what OU might want. I think ultimately this comes down to a power game between OU and TX. OU wants Pac12, but I think they really want it with Texas (as would the Pac12). Texas wants the Big12-2-1, but they really want it with OU. So it might just be those two schools trying to see who'll blink. Maybe this is a trial balloon to see what comes out of Texas if they feel like they have to go somewhere instead of keeping the Big12.
All good points, Major. Both my guys say the only person at OU who really wants Pac12 is Boren; that everyone else was suspect of that. That's what surprised me most about this article.
You also have to figure out if the Pac 12 actually wants OU/OSU - Colorado has already raised some objections to it, along with the AZ schools, and while you may harbor doubts, the stories that the California academic elites don't want more mediocre schools with questionable, Dez Bryantian admissions standards mucking up their smartypants club keep floating around.
If it happens, I sure hope Texas and A&M settle their differences and maintain their onfield rivalry. But here's what concerns me, re: the Big12 2.1 - what are its expansion options? Seems to me we're headed to super conferences. The Pac12, SEC and Big10 are going to survive. That leaves, basically, the ACC, Big East and Big 12 to fight for what will likely be the final spot (4 SCs, 16 teams each). I hope they're thinking long-term in that regard. They've had so much tunrover and rancor, that settling the status quo may just put you right back in the crosshairs.
I've been hearing about the inevitability of super conferences for as long as I can remember...I'm not so sure they're either imminent or inevitable.
I think if the Pac12 believes the way of the future is the 16 team conference - and Larry Scott has been the leading voice on that issue - they don't have much choice to get their 4 schools. Being on the west coast, there are only so many options for them: Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, Kansas, Boise? Outside of Texas, there's no one they can bring in that has the academics, TV audience, and football. At least with OU, you bring a powerhouse football program with a national TB brand. If it comes down to it, I think the Pac12 would take OU/OSU alone, perhaps in part on the hope that Texas would be forced to follow.
Hmmmm... interesting. I certainly want them, if for no other reason than they lead to a playoff. I just think there's ultimately too much money on the table for them to be content with 12-ish schools.
I think it will be hell to get 4 conferences to 16 teams...I think the point you brought up last week about it being too incestuous with ESPN and FOX already being involved in every conference is part of the issue. I don't see anyone proactively doing it...I see conferences talking about adding teams to protect themselves in the event it happens. Solomon wrote a piece about it the other day where he said he's yet to talk to anyone in an important position in college sports that's excited about it or doesn't express serious reservations about it.
I agree - I think the Big12 has expansion problems trying to get back to 12 schools, let alone compete with the 16 team model. I'll give them BYU as a swap for A&M, but then what? None of the schools being discussed is remotely at the level of Nebraska or probably even at the level of Colorado. As to MM's point, I agree that the talk about the 16 team conference has been a lot of talk for a long time. No one ever wanted to make the first move - but I think A&M + someone else to SEC might be the link that starts that chain. Pac12 has already indicated it wants to expand if anyone else does (I have no idea why it's necessary to match the SEC, but whatever). That probably puts pressure on the Big10 and potentially Notre Dame, which has said it would join a conference only if the superconference model seems to be coming together.
If they did do 4 super conferences, couldn't you see the schools that are left out going to lawsuits or legislation to get a playoff? DD
On a side note, Pac10 was willing to go to 16 last year - because that was the time they were negotiating a new TV deal. SEC seems to want to get to 14 or 16 in part to blow up their own TV deal and renegotiate it up. So the TV deals seem to be the instigating force behind the move to 16.
If they were allowed to pick and choose to satisfy their constiutents, I think they'd pick Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, due to its basketball, and then maybe Air Force as a palatable option which would placate colorado/arizona by adding another Western team. Academics wouldn't take as great a hit that way either. The other issue is that Okahoma/Oklahoma state really isn't a good cultural fit. Austin is sort of where "the West"" begins and the South ends...not really sure if Norman/Stillwater fit that bill.
if you get the right schools, there's no question you can get more money...whether more money per school depends on who you add. obviously UT would be a coup. but i'm not sure OU/OSU alone provide that much value to the Pac 12 who already has the biggest media deal of any conference. i just don't know the demographics/numbers behind all that.
I'm not sure if it matters or not...but it's very difficult for me to imagine schools in the Central time zone playing against PAC schools. That still throws me for a loop. It may ultimately happen, it just strikes me as strange.
Agreed - I think that's why Larry Scott has said they are happy at 12 for now, while the SEC (who's deal is several years old and seems outdated) wants to expand. But for whatever reason - and I don't really understand it - he's said that they will expand if others do. I don't see the problem with staying at 12 while the SEC is at 16, but it seems they don't like that idea. I agree with Sam's list as probably the "ideal 4" for them. Unfortunately for them, I think OSU is tied to OU. Kansas would jump at the opportunity. So the question is if they can force Texas' hand. Everything comes back to LHN - will anyone take Texas with it, and if not, how comfortable is Texas with being independent?
