Buffsfan09
Member
interesting take on conference expansion...super conferences...got it from an ESPN blog story...
http://media.nj.com/ledgerarchives/other/colorBIG10.DT.pdf
http://media.nj.com/ledgerarchives/other/colorBIG10.DT.pdf
That "big idea" story was new info to me and pretty cool in the sense that history repeats itself, but some of their conference shifting is just idiotic.
For starters:
-- If Tulsa is in line for a Big 12 bid, then the league is dying. NEVER happens.
-- Cal and UCLA HATE the Cal State University system and would set the conference on fire before ever allowing Fresno State and SDSU in. The Pac would allow CSU and UNM in before those two got a shot.
-- The Big Atlantic looks like a disaster
Some of those calls were dead on but many just seemed odd.
Agree some of it made NO sense. Seemed to me they were pretty much trying to shoehorn every current BCS conference team into a new superconference. So the Big XII lands Utah and BYU and takes teams like Tulsa, CSU, Houston, etc. in order to get to XVI, even after losing CU, Mizzou and UNL. And the Big East/ACC survivors joining up for a 20 team basketball league. And the Pac 10 letting Utah go to the Big XVI and taking teams like SDSU, Nevada, Boise and UNLV instead. He's basically assuming a lot of leagues and teams do some very illogical ****, just to allow him to end up with 16 team superconferences out of all the current BCS leagues. He's assuming this realignment will bring more schools to the big party. I think it's going to turn out the other way. A lot of schools will be left behind.
Exactly. This much I'm pretty assured of: If CU, NU and Mizzou leave, the Big 12 will DIE. If that happens, the big four of the South (OU, OSU, UT and A&M -- sorry Tech!) will go somewhere (SEC) as a package. Big 12 could survive losing Mizzou and NU, but not all three.
True, but I don't think making another conference that's essentially Texas-focused will work in today's TV climate. TCU and Houston add marginal numbers in terms of TVs, since the Big 12 already has Houston and DFW. If I'm the Big 12, I'd rather aim for new markets, even if they're small: Utah/BYU/UNM/Memphis/Louisville.
I think Tech, ATM, and UT have got a taste of being "national" and a return to some semblance of the old SWC puts them back in a "regional" picture. Sure, UT is one of the top 10 programs all-time but the SWC was very much a regional affair. The Cotton Bowl, their championship jewel, was the hangover game on New Years Day and obviously the Cotton did not make the BCS. More often than not, it was the SWC champ against someone else's #2 or an independent who wasn't in the MNC hunt. If the SWC had been producing contenders year-in, year-out....then that's a whole different outcome maybe. By virtue of the power of (then) independents like Penn St, ND, Miami, FSU....the Fiesta leap-frogged the Cotton prestige-wise in a matter of 10 years maybe.
Texas has a ton of HS talent but I'm not sure 1. the region can sustain a Power Conference on it's own (even with OU and OSU, say) and 2. UT will always be militating to be the feudal lord among the other suppliant fiefs in the kingdom. So, UT's interest is never in growing the conference but more in growing UT's sphere of influence within it.
interesting take on conference expansion...super conferences...got it from an ESPN blog story...
http://media.nj.com/ledgerarchives/other/colorBIG10.DT.pdf
Another Media source that has no clue what the Pac-10 is looking for. Why in the heck would the pac-10 go to 16..and add more mouths to feed, just for the sake of going to 16? Fresno State, Boise State, Nevada? Colorado State? I swear media just looks at schools that reside in the Mountain West/West and automatically assume they make sense for a expanded 16.
Those schools do not bring enough $$$$ with them to make it worth while for the pac-16. Again, the feeling I get from everything I have read is..if it doesn't make $$$ sense..then the pac-10 won't expand.
Another Media source that has no clue what the Pac-10 is looking for. Why in the heck would the pac-10 go to 16..and add more mouths to feed, just for the sake of going to 16? Fresno State, Boise State, Nevada? Colorado State? I swear media just looks at schools that reside in the Mountain West/West and automatically assume they make sense for a expanded 16.
Those schools do not bring enough $$$$ with them to make it worth while for the pac-16. Again, the feeling I get from everything I have read is..if it doesn't make $$$ sense..then the pac-10 won't expand.
I think Tech, ATM, and UT have got a taste of being "national" and a return to some semblance of the old SWC puts them back in a "regional" picture. Sure, UT is one of the top 10 programs all-time but the SWC was very much a regional affair. The Cotton Bowl, their championship jewel, was the hangover game on New Years Day and obviously the Cotton did not make the BCS. More often than not, it was the SWC champ against someone else's #2 or an independent who wasn't in the MNC hunt. If the SWC had been producing contenders year-in, year-out....then that's a whole different outcome maybe. By virtue of the power of (then) independents like Penn St, ND, Miami, FSU....the Fiesta leap-frogged the Cotton prestige-wise in a matter of 10 years maybe.
Texas has a ton of HS talent but I'm not sure 1. the region can sustain a Power Conference on it's own (even with OU and OSU, say) and 2. UT will always be militating to be the feudal lord among the other suppliant fiefs in the kingdom. So, UT's interest is never in growing the conference but more in growing UT's sphere of influence within it.
It seems to me that the Pac-10's options are very limited here outside of Texas and A&M, CU & Utah. If the Pac-10 doesn't expand, that conference could die down the road...basically just like the Big 8 back in the early 1990's.
It seems to me that the Pac-10's options are very limited here outside of Texas and A&M, CU & Utah. If the Pac-10 doesn't expand, that conference could die down the road...basically just like the Big 8 back in the early 1990's.