Nebraska has an easier shot at winning the Big 10 than they do the Big 12. Colorado has about the same (slim) chance of winning the Pac-12 as they did the Big 12.
Don't think you can really include CU and Nebraska in that category. CU left strictly out of fear of being the lone man out during last summer's realignment talks, it had nothing to do with trying to get into a more competetive conference IMO. I also think arguments can be made on the chance of winning/strength in the (old) Big 12 vs. the Big/Pac 10. It wasn't that long ago when the Big 12 had 5-6 teams consistently in the Top 25 with 3 or so consistently being in the Top 10 (Texas, OU, OkSt.). With that said, the conference outside of UT and OU has been shot to crap recently.
A&M's schedule, particularly if Texas is on it as an out-of-conference game, has the potential to be absolutely ridiculously difficult each year. Not trying to make a point with that...we've been talking a lot about SEC teams A&M would play, but if they retain UT as well, that's like a murderers' row.
You guys are analyzing this wrong. They don't leave for more competitive conferences because they want more competition, they leave because the money is better. Why don't teams leave the SEC for the Big East? It's not because the competition is worse, it's why would you leave that money behind? The BIG10 is a better conference for its members financially and prestige wise, on top of being more stable. Same is true of the Pac-10. Those schools left because they had opportunities to get more equitable revenue splits. A&M wants to go to the SEC not because it's a better football conference (although it is) but because the money will be better. Their seat at the table will be better. The Big 12 is a screwed up, inequitable conference. The teams at the top love it because they get to dominate the decision making in it and get the biggest piece of the money pie. The teams at the bottom tolerate it because they aren't attractive enough to other conferences to get a better deal anywhere else. That's why I want Houston to join it! Better deal than they can get anywhere else!
I don't think anyone knows at this point. If Mizzou goes, I think the conference dies. If only A&M goes, I think they try to bandaid it. And on the field, the Big12 will remain competitive in the short term - OSU and Mizzou are both ranked, and assuming UT gets back there, that leaves 4 regularly ranked teams. That said, if looked at overall value to the conference (not how a team is doing, but what the school brings to the table - money, national interest, TV sets, etc), you'd probably have ranked the conference as follows: 1. Texas 2. OU 3a/3b: A&M, Nebraska (whichever order) 5a/5b: Mizzou, Colorado 7a/7b/7c: OSU, Tech, Kansas 10a/10b/10c: Baylor, Iowa State, K-State If A&M leaves, the conference will have lost 3 of their top 6 members. If Mizzou leaves, that's 4 out of 6. Over time, that means less interest in the conference and it probably means the secondary schools like OSU can't sustain their level of excellence. You probably devolve into Texas, OU, and a bunch of scrubs. This is all a guess though - no real way to know how it would play out. Today's statements by A&M should be interesting. They might be stuck (if the SEC really rejected them), they might just say that want out anyway and look for another home, or they might ask into the SEC.
I think the Big 12 could survive fine if they wanted to. I don't understand why they are opposed to going back to 12 teams though personally.
It would probably be the hardest schedule in college football. Surely amongst the top 3-5 most difficult schedules year-in-and-year-out.
Part of it is optics. What teams do you bring in? And how do you convince people that those teams are at the same caliber as Nebraska, A&M, and Colorado? No BCS conference wants to be perceived as picking up the scraps and "downgrading" - so by not adding anyone, I think they avoided that image for a bit. But if they lose anymore, they have to start replacing them. From a finance perspective, the B12 seems fine. But if you're a member school, and you just watched 3 of your fellow conference members join a stable, happy, healthy conference where they get lots of money and lots of say in how things are run, how do you convince yourself you got a good deal? I think ultimately people will see the writing on the wall - if we're headed toward the four 16-team superconference model many people think we're moving towards, then you better take your opportunity to get into one of the 4 conferences that will survive. And right now, it looks like those will be the Pac10, SEC, Big10 and ACC - the Big12 is just too easy to poach from all directions, and the BigEast could easily become the premier basketball conference for non-football schools.
It's already crappy IMO. Which is why UT and OU want to stay. Can't blame em. It wont die. But it should. Pac-16 would have been great.
Yeah, for Texas and OU this is the best of both worlds. They get to be powerhouses in a conference they can win AND they get money that is unlikely to be matched elsewhere.
All of these schools went to a tougher conference? I asm because I surely don't think Colorado or Nebraska did. If so on the first 3, good catch.
I'm just surprised OU will be getting all this money in such a weakened conference. I get the path to the BCS is easier, but this huge conference money they've been throwing around in the Pac-12 & SEC seems not only bigger, but also actually attainable.
And that's cool with Aggie fans? Maybe I'm just a p***y, but I get pissed when I see the Texans have one of the harder schedules. Same with the Rockets or any other team that I follow. I want something competitive and good games, but I take no solace in "we didn't do well but our schedule was very tough".
A few factors 1) OU doesn't get to go to the Pac-12 and get Pac-12 money without Texas. 2) The SEC and the Pac-12 have better revenue than the Big 12, but in those conferences they split the money evenly with their members. In Big 12 they get to split less money, but the two big boys get a larger piece of the pie. 3) Texas has no interest in going to a new conference now because they don't want to give up the money from LHN.
At the national title level, I think that's true. But in college football, that's a pretty narrow field - most people aren't look at national titles, but conference titles. And in that regard, every team in the SEC has the same difficulty schedule. It's more difficult than the Big12, but at least you're on even footing with all your competitors. And for bowl games, being in a good league gets you better bowl games, so the #5 team in the SEC might get just as good a bowl game as the #3 team in the Big12. With the Texans, because of unbalanced schedules, they actually may have a more difficult schedule than the Colts or Titans, which sucks if they are competing directly against them - or against other wildcards for playoff spots.
To clarify - I'm not saying a national title isn't the goal. But if you're at that level of being able to compete for a national title, a difficult schedule isn't nearly as scary. And it certainly hasn't stopped SEC teams from winning them.
Agreed for the most part. However, I'm not sure how much better the money will be in the SEC. I also don't think their seat at the table will be any better. You're right in that teams at the top of the Big 12 get the biggest share of the money, but A&M is/was one of those top teams and was set to make the same amount of money as UT and OU from that contract. Also, if A&M is worried about the pull UT has in the Big 12, they better be ready when Bama and Florida start pushing their weight around.
