Lots of Utah fans posting numerous threads re: Pac 10 Expansion-
http://www.utefans.net/list.php
some interesting stuff being posted-
http://www.utefans.net/list.php
some interesting stuff being posted-
where have you been lately
pussy :lol:I've been around- read more than I post.
Of course, it would be nice if the Colorado athletic director were in on it ... (quote from April 29th)
http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=204938177
[FONT=Cambria, serif]CUBuffs.com: We're not hearing as much expansion talk out of the Pac-10 Conference now as we did a couple of months ago. Is the talk simmering just under the surface or has it cooled considerably?[/FONT]
[FONT=Cambria, serif]MB: "It does appear to be pretty quiet. As I like to say, it's like crickets out there." :rolling_eyes:[/FONT]
You need to re-read what he said, Montana. He said it "appears" to be quiet. He confirmed the lead up to the question without ever answering the actual question. It was actually a great dodge to avoid talking about something he isn't ready to talk about. I thought that showed some savvy media handling by our AD.
This would mean that Mike Bohn is on top of things, acting coy, and has it all under control. I hope your right.
The first five years of his administration not withstanding ...
Outside of coaching hires, I don't have any issues with Bohn. Do you?
Scotty,
Interesting analysis but it fails on a couple of counts. The PAC10 media dollars you quote are based off an old, expiring deal. The Big XII dollars are from a deal than still has years to run. The BigXII, even if you make the changes you are talking about still comprises a much smaller and less influential media footprint than the PAC10 does. The reason for all this speculation in the first place is the desire of the PAC10 to maximize their upcoming media contracts. Take the Denver market out of the BigXII and add it to the PAC10 along with the SLC market (or even the New Mexico market as a first alternate) and the media potential of the PAC10 dwarfs the Big XII. If the dominos start to fall the BigXII become the clearcut loser in the deal.
The Arizona schools are much better served in the PAC10 than they would be in a revised Big XII, more money with the new media contracts, more contact with their large alumni bases in California and the Pacific Northwest, more compatibility in terms of scheduling of other sports, and not having to deal with the Texas insistence on calling all the shots in the conference.
Add to this the fact that Texas politics will not allow the Big XII to exist without Baylor which is the smallest of the Big XII schools but highly connected politically, if anything the politicians would force the Big XII to add SMU, Houston, and Rice before UNM or BYU would get a sniff.
UT itself is a desirable target due to its huge dollars, national appeal, and academic and athletic success. They may be able to drag A&M with them if things disolve and they are forced to seek a new home but their days of calling the shots would be over.
The PAC10 hired the people they did for a reason, to maximize their media returns. This of course is all speculation at this point but I am seeing something that looks like a massive reorganization of major college football into fewer bigger conferences. The Big 10 is going to raid the BigXII as well as some eastern teams, the SEC will keep their teams and potentially expand as well, if they do then UT and aTm would be the logical match for them as well as OU. Outside of Texas the current or your proposed Big XII make up a second rate TV footprint, I think that if the dominos start to fall, the Big XII as we know it is a dead issue.
My comments on Baylor and the other Texas schools are based on past history, you may say that Baylor lacks the political juice but that argument was made prior to the formation of the Big XII. People in Texas take their college football very seriously and the political cost of ignoring that is to great to ignore. There are still people mad about the end of the SWC sending the non-BigXII schools to mid-major status.
BYU carries to much baggage, despite a strong fan base, in and out of Utah, and a long record of success I think they are at best a fallback choice. They have wanted into the PAC10 for years and have been rebuffed continuously.
Maybe I'm just beaten down from all of the recent troubles for CU, but I just don't see this happening for CU.
The PAC10 hired the people they did for a reason, to maximize their media returns. This of course is all speculation at this point but I am seeing something that looks like a massive reorganization of major college football into fewer bigger conferences. The Big 10 is going to raid the BigXII as well as some eastern teams, the SEC will keep their teams and potentially expand as well, if they do then UT and aTm would be the logical match for them as well as OU. Outside of Texas the current or your proposed Big XII make up a second rate TV footprint, I think that if the dominos start to fall, the Big XII as we know it is a dead issue.
My comments on Baylor and the other Texas schools are based on past history, you may say that Baylor lacks the political juice but that argument was made prior to the formation of the Big XII. People in Texas take their college football very seriously and the political cost of ignoring that is to great to ignore. There are still people mad about the end of the SWC sending the non-BigXII schools to mid-major status.
BYU carries to much baggage, despite a strong fan base, in and out of Utah, and a long record of success I think they are at best a fallback choice. They have wanted into the PAC10 for years and have been rebuffed continuously.
I don't get the "logic" of UT, A&M, OU, and OSU to the SEC. Geographically perhaps it makes sense. But the only SEC team that has a history with any of those schools is Arkansas and that is with only UT and A&M. They might bring money in, but both geographically and historically, there are quite a few other teams that would be on the list before those four.
The first post of reason! I am not going to say that CU will not go to the PAC10 or that UNL will not go to the Big10(11), it is all speculation.
Could it be that the Big12 gets a new TV contract, and revenue sharing changes and the Big12 stays intact and expands.
Just a thought.
Your thought is valid. We would be naive to think that Texas isn't considering or exploring all of its options... and that INCLUDES keeping the status quo. This talk of Big 10 Expansion may force Texas to change the current revenue stream in the Big 12. Texas will do what is in Texas' best interest. The Big 10 can expand without the Big 12 and Texas will surely have ALOT to say about that.
I think Texas would sooner go independent than agree to revenue sharing to keep the Big 12 together.
If I'm Texas, I'm looking long and hard at going solo and creating a Texas Sports Network. They could create an entire network dedicated to HS and college sports in Texas and kick small percentages out to the local schools they cover. They could retain the lion's share of revenue and not have to compromise with a conference that wants them to give up some of the pie.
I don't get the "logic" of UT, A&M, OU, and OSU to the SEC. Geographically perhaps it makes sense. But the only SEC team that has a history with any of those schools is Arkansas and that is with only UT and A&M. They might bring money in, but both geographically and historically, there are quite a few other teams that would be on the list before those four.
What do they lose with that? No Conference Championship game $$$.... and what type of BCS automatic bid would they get? If they get a tier 2 bowl or below... would they have done better by being affiliated with a conference? ND used to be the model of revenue... get a TV deal. Now, they make less than Indiana and Northwestern (every Big 10 team).
I don't get the "logic" of UT, A&M, OU, and OSU to the SEC. Geographically perhaps it makes sense. But the only SEC team that has a history with any of those schools is Arkansas and that is with only UT and A&M. They might bring money in, but both geographically and historically, there are quite a few other teams that would be on the list before those four.