Agree - I do think that's a negative of the Pac16 model. But realistically, the way the pod system was set up, there would only be two real games far away per year, given that UT would play OSU, OU, and Tech annually. And a lot of those west coast schools, while further away, are as easy to get to as the north Big12 schools. Grand total might be 1 extra hour of travel each way. As an added bonus, Texas has alumni all over the west coast that would be able to get to see their team.
Why? We'd be keeping the best teams in the Big12 (OU, OSU), and adding an array of ranked or near-ranked teams in USC, Oregon, Arizona State, and Stanford. A theoretical Pac16 has 4 teams in the top 10, another ranked, and 3 teams in the next 5 (#26-#30). Utah and Cal have been pretty good the last decade as well. Had the Pac16 included A&M (last year's version), the conference would currently have five teams in the top 10, compared to 2 for the SEC, and 1 each for the ACC, MWC, and Big10. Add to that the academic upgrade and the quality of the roadtrips and I don't see any reason the Big9 is better. From a purely academic standpoint, the Big10 would be better. From a purely football standpoint, the SEC would be the most fun. But from a university-as-a-whole standpoint, the Pac10 is the best mix of the bunch.
Sorry - this got messed up a little. Utah and Arizona State (along with Texas) were the teams in the "next 5". So in the top 30, there are 8 teams, 4 of which are in the top 10.
Not arrogant at all, it is the truth....I am not attached to either school, just looking at it from the 10,000 foot view. DD
I doubt it. I don't think the new Big 12 will be that bad. Well, if there are 3 tied undefeateds or 3 tied 1-loss teams all from major conferences then I guess the Big 12 would be screwed. Still not so sure about that though, seeing as how the Big 12, even with the loss of A&M, still has a lot of top 25 teams. Either way, that scenario is rare. If OU runs the table this year chances are they are playing in the title game, even if A&M weren't in the conference. You disagree?
That scenario is not rare at all. It's happened twice this decade with undefeated teams - with Cinci and Auburn being the two teams left out. And 3 or more 1-loss teams happens regularly. In 2008, you had 7 1-loss teams. Texas, Tech, and Alabama didn't win their conference, but USC & Penn State were left out in favor of Florida & OU. 2007 was a total mess, with LSU being selected from a whole bunch of 2-loss teams, with Kansas (11-1) being left out for not winning the conference. 2006 had a 1-loss Florida picked over the Big East's 1-loss Louisville. 2004 had an undefeated Auburn left out. 2003 had a 1-loss USC left out in favor of OU and LSU. Basically, every year that doesn't have exactly 2 undefeated teams had some sort of debate over who the 2 teams should be. For the most part, the Big12 has gotten the benefit of the doubt because of the strength of the conference and it's conference championship game enabled its teams to showcase themselves at the end of the season. If A&M weren't in the conference, I'm not sure. They have the bonus of starting the season #1 so that helps. An SEC team would certainly get in over them. I think their biggest competition would be an undefeated Oregon, with wins over LSU and Stanford, as well the potential for another big win in the Pac12 title game. Without A&M, OU would only have one big name win in conference - #9 OSU. The key for OU is probably their non-conference also having #6 Florida State. So a lot would probably depend on how Florida State turns out vs how LSU turns out. Of course, I'm basing this all on the computer portion of the analysis and assuming that teams end up being about as good as projected. The human voter portion would depend on how each team looks week-in and week-out. OU fortunately plays their marquee game (OSU) on the last weekend of the season, so that helps counter the Oregon Pac12 title game. A theoretical undefeated Texas, on the other hand, would be beating up on Baylor that weekend while Oregon would be playing in a title game.
Let's clarify. I thought you were referring to a situation where 3 major teams are all tied and you have to pick 2 of them to play for the title. That rarely happens. In the case of 2008, not winning your conference will automatically X you in favor of the team that did (assuming the record is the same). So throw Tech and Bama out the window since the teams that won their conference did play for the NC. Good calls on USC and Penn State though. However, Penn State got X'd because of who their loss came to (Iowa). Same for USC (Oregon State). They didn't get to play for the NC because their 1 loss came to non contenders/scrubs...pure upsets. If you get upset by a so-so squad your season is done. It has nothing to do with the strength of the conference. 2007 doesn't qualify. Ohio State made the NC game with 1 loss and LSU was picked over other 2 loss teams. That's not 3 teams being tied. USC also had 2 losses but one of them came to scrub Stanford, so they were done. As far as the other 2 loss teams from major conferences (GA, Missou), they didn't win the conf. It's almost impossible to argue that you should play for the NC when you didn't even win your own conference. Yes, but Ohio State was undefeated. That's not 3 teams being tied (I think you and I just meant different things). This year qualifies, as all 3 teams had the same record and they had to pick 2 of them. And they picked the Big 12 team (just noting, not sure why OU got picked). This year qualifies. They also picked the Big 12 team. Edit: You are right that every year where there weren't two undefeateds had some debate. However, most years you don't have 3 teams with the same record that are all conference winners (yes I'm adding the last part but I thought it was just understood that you have to win your conference to play for the NC). The debate usually centers around the 2nd squad trying to get in the NC. I think I agree with you on the latter part of this quote though, even though I don't think A&M being gone will make the Big 12 not get picked anymore because the years their teams were getting picked A&M wasn't any good. However Nebraska was and they did have a title game, which is why I agree. As far as the rest of your post, I think a 1 loss Big 12 team would still be ok compared to 1 loss teams from other conferences. This is assuming that UT doesn't suck (that would hurt a 1 loss OU, for example).
Obviously A&M should not get the same treatment on exit fees, considering Colorado and Nebraska were something like unrestricted free agents. And A&M signed dotted lines agreeing to reform the Big 12 while FULLY understanding the provisions laid out to them when they did it.
It'd be okay for football, passable for basketball. But it'd be BRUTAL for all the other college sports no one wants to care about. Having tennis, volleyball, track, gymnastics, swim teams traveling halfway around the country every other game wont sit too well. These aren't professional players, students have to be close to their schools to keep with their studies.
exactly. if they give them a similar deal, the big xii will have to have some sort of guarantee that their tv deals won't be slashed.
Hey it's official now: Texas A&M to Seek Affiliation With Another Athletic Conference Now let the VTech to SEC rumors go in full swing.
Apparently you know nothing about which you are talking about. There was NO signed agreement last year holding the Big XII agreement. There was a "gentleman's agreement," that the Big XII and Texas already broke. Beebe is making a big deal about getting a signed 10 year agreement this time around, but only about 5 teams are willing to sign it. Texas and OU are not part of that group willing to sign. Very telling about the future of the Big XII and a good reason why A&M is jumping to stability.
Huh? Are you saying last year A&M didn't sign some type of agreement to be a part of the Big 12 and get revenues (current and future) from the deal? So how will this settlement all play out? How much leverage does A&M have to not pay the full amount (whatever that may be)?
I believe that's correct - the Big12 just continued to exist, so there was no need to sign anything. There were a lot of promises made about future revenues, etc but I saw somewhere that Beebe said there was never any formal new agreement or commitment. Good question - I'm not sure why the Big12 has any reason to settle, except to speed up the process and not have ongoing lawsuits. The same was the case for CU/NU, but the Big12 let them go. I think exit fees routinely are negotiated down simply to keep the peace.
