SEC might be adding a few teams and hear they are gunna try and make a run @ OKlahoma and Oklahoma State. Also Miami, Florida State, North Carolina, and Virginia Tech might get invites as well.
I understand the sentiment, but respectfully disagree that Texas is the main villian in this melodrama. In fact, in terms of pure dollars, UT probably had most to gain from the Big 12 staying together. Don't get me wrong, I am not crying poor, and I really feel for KU and KSU (screw Missouri, they brought it on themselves) but the Big 12 was a great conference for basically everyone in the South division. The North, with the exception of Nebraska, was always going to have hard time competing year in and year out against south in football. And rightly or wrongly, football is king (sorry Kansas). Remember why Big 8 wanted to create Big 12 in the first place. It was not out of any altruistic motives, they wanted Texas TVs and recruiting. And the uneven revenue sharing? The primary force behind that idea was Nebraska. They just never thought that they would be so quickly overtaken by UT. Sure, in recent years UT was the big swinging d*ck in the conference. But remember, Nebraska was losing the votes 11-1. It is not like the Big 8 teams were sticking together. Rather, all of the rest of the conference was going with UT. When it came to issues of scholarships, location of headquarters etc. Nebraska was the outlier, not UT. As a UT guy I hate seeing the Big 12 blow up if for no other reason than UT has become a top 5, if not top, athletic program in the country while in the Big 12. Selfishly, I don't see UT getting a better deal anywhere else. As for the other teams in the Big 12, I think that Nebraska probably made a good move for itself going to Big 10. I am not convinced that when the new Big 12 TV contracts are negotiated that the Big 12 per team splits would not have approached $20 mill per team, even with UT's own TV network. And again, is not as if the Big 12 was the worst Conference in terms of TV revenue. Less than Big 10 and SEC for sure, but that was a function of the TV contracts rather than the arrangement amongst conference members. I think the remaining teams would have been better off in the Big 12 rather than any of the other current plans being floated right now. I suppose that with the clout UT has, they may still try and reconstitute the Big 12 somehow. I think, with the exception of Missouri, the remaining teams will fall over themselves to align with UT. Those relationships have been to good for everyone involved, including UT, to give up lightly. This might even work for awhile if they bring in someone like BYU, who will bring lots of TVs with them. Unfortunately, it appears we are on the cusp of an era of super-conferences and that any conference with less than 14 teams, even with UT and OU, will not be able to compete long term. If I had to guess as to the outcome, I would go with UT A&M TT OU & OSU going to the new PAC-16 So who is the real villain? Missouri!!! We will see. If nothing else, it is interesting. Texphinphan
Just saw this at Orangebloods.com. Chip Brown, who has really been breaking a lot of the news on this, especially from the UT POV (he has REALLY good UT sources) just posted that: Note the interesting absence of A&M on that list. If A&M splits from UT and goes to the SEC, that would be the most shocking thing which will come from all of this. I think it would be a huge blunder for A&M and bad news for UT as well, if for no other reason than it gives the SEC more of a beachhead in Texas for recruiting.
If you're a competitive program and are in a BCS Conf. it dosen't matter whats going on with your conference. You'll pull good kids regardless. This is about the usual. Money. Once again, the old pursuit of More, More, More! is ruining something. You've got long standing rivalries that bring exciting games every year to the table that will simply dissapear. Anyone that is a true fan of the game of college football has to hate all this "superconference" crap.
i am hearing strong rumors that Texas A&M is likely to be joining the SEC West, to open up the Texas TV markets to the SEC and also those fertile recruiting grounds. the University of Florida is said to be adamantly opposed to FSU and Miami being invited, because the SEC's (and their own) domination of the BCS championship recently has become a huge in-state edge over those two schools in recruiting and they do not want to give that up. and for the SEC East, i have it on good authority (from some big money boosters), that they have been putting feelers out behind the scenes to Clemson for some time. South Carolina is already their in state rivalry, which wouldn't change, and Clemson vs Georgia was a huge rivalary as well before the SEC and ACC expanded in the 90's.
I'm mostly in favor of these super conferences. I think if the Big 12 goes away that there's a better chance that the Mountain West gets an automatic bid. That means a team like Boise State doesn't get left out in the cold most every year. I hate the automatic bid system b/c you end up with some worthy teams left out of the BCS and some unworthy teams in. Maybe if the best football programs are all part of one of these conferences then that will happen less often.
I've heard that Texas A & M prefers the SEC and that Texas prefers the PAC-10. Will the Texas teams part ways (unlikely IMO) or will the Texas teams move en mass either East or West?
There is currently a split amongst the A&M Higher ups, one group, Led by Gene Stallings wants to go SEC, while the other, more pragmatic group (including, some say, our Governor, and ex Aggie cheerleader, Rick Perry) will go where UT goes (even though several of those would still prefer the SEC over PAC-10 if UT went). There is also the general feeling here in Texas that at the end of the day cooler heads will prevail and A&M goes with UT. As I stated in another post, A&M going to SEC would be a huge error for A&M and also I think bad for UT. No need to give the SEC more inroads into our backyard. Also, A&M losing the UT rivalry is much more damaging for that program rather than vice versa. If A&M thinks its tough in the Big 12 South, wait until they get a taste of the SEC West Texphinphan
if A & M goes to the SEC there is no reason they cannot still play UT on Thanksgiving weekend just like they do now. for what it's worth, on the ESPN ticker all day today, they are saying that the PAC 10 will extend the invitation to UT, Tech, Oklahoma, and OK State. no mention of A & M.
So you're trading Boise State for Kansas, K-State, Missouri, and Iowa State? I hate the automatic bid system as well..it's a crock of **** if you ask me, and I've got no problem with having major conferences, but if they're going to freeze reputable programs out because they have less tv sets than other schools I'm going to cry foul. On any given year ISU, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas State, and Kansas are as good as each other. The issue with Kansas, K-State, ISU and missouri, are their small markets. Good teams run a great chance of getting frozen out, and that's not right. These "Super Conferences" are creating a VIP club based not on academic or athletic performance, but how many viewers the schools have. The cry for a playoffs was so that teams DIDN'T get frozen out of competing for a National Championship, not so the richest schools could create a monopoly and generate millions of more dollars than they already have. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. It's absolutely abysmal, and if it happens I'll FULLY support stripping teams of tax exempt status, funding from state taxes, and fee's from students.
That's why I want the playoffs as well, but until that's a possibility I want as few good teams frozen out as possible. So yes, I'd trade Kansas, K-State, Missouri, and Iowa State for Boise State, BYU, Utah, TCU as I think the chances of a National Championship contender coming out of the latter group is greater.
Presently: Some teams are frozen out for automatic bids, some teams make lots of money Future of Mega-conference: Some teams are frozen out, some teams make **** tons of money You're not fixing the problem, just swapping the players and amplifying the money of the top dogs. That makes no sense to me.
I see it as: Presently: Some good conferences and all the teams in them whether good or bad are frozen out. Future of Mega-Conferences: (hopefully) Fewer conferences are frozen out and more of the good teams are in the conferences that aren't. It doesn't fix the problem b/c it's not a playoff, but it's an improvement over what exists now.
You're ignoring the fact that this isn't about atheletic success..not in the least. Within the last decade Iowa State played for the Big North Championship twice, and K-State had massive success on the national stage. I think you're ignoring the fact that there are VERY few perennially successful teams. And that while at this moment the teams that you listed are viable, but historically they're not even a blip on the competitive radar. They're not perennial winners and the argument that they deserve a shot over other viable universities is homerism. I've watched my team have moderate success in the Big 12, and enjoy the benefits of being a BCS team. They're competitive and have had some highs, and some lows. Meanwhile teams in non-BCS teams have languished due to they're not being in a major conference. I've always thought that was a huge injustice (I saw the same thing in HS sports when I played football), and I'd contend that MOST of those teams think it was a huge injustice. Yet now that the opportunity to jump to a major conference reveals itself, the people formerly crying injustice are praising an amplification of the same system because they could be in? You don't see a problem with that? I'm fine with having bigger conferences....I personally feel that it's foolish to think that the top teams in the country are going to be content with only 2 champions per year in these mega-conferences (why do you think Texas won't go to the SEC?), and that the bottom feeders will be content helping to churn millions of dollars into the "premiere" teams programs while they languish at the bottom of the pile, but if that's the future, that's the future.
Being as good as each other isn't necessarily all that great when you can't compete with the teams in the other half of your conference. Standings 2009->2004 ISU: 7-6, 2-10, 3-9, 4-8, 7-5 (3-12 vs Big XII South in that time) Colorado: 3-9, 5-7, 6-7, 2-10, 7-6 (7-9 vs Big XII South in that time) Mizzou: 8-5, 10-4, 12-1, 8-5, 7-5 (6-11 vs Big XII South in that time) KSt: 6-6, 5-7, 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-5 (6-9 vs Big XII South in that time) Kansas: 5-7, 8-5, 12-2, 7-6, 5-6 (3-12 vs Big XII South in that time)
Boise St is 94-11 since 2002. They are perennial winners and 2-0 in BCS games (6-4 in bowl games). The reason they are a blip on the radar historically is because they only became an FBS team in 2001.
1. That's proportionate to the profit sharing in the big 12 The big 12 south took an unequatable amount of the profits from the Big 12. That will get worse with the mega-conferences. 2. The point was being made to illustrate that every conference has their star teams, and every conference has their sub par teams, which on any given year aren't different from eachother, other than the amount of viewers that they have. It's not about talent, or success of the field. It's what tv market they bring to the conference. Which once again I say is a **** way to decide the have's and have not's.
We could get into an argument over whom Boise St. has been playing, their record, etc. But that would be totally missing the point of contention. Remember we're not talking about whom is better than whom..we're talking about the system.... Boise State has been *****ing (and rightfully so) that they have been getting the shaft because of the conference that they're in, and have been screaming for parity...which there should be.... Fast forward a few years and they're in a position to be in a part of the super conferences.....which is once again going to give some teams the shaft and people on this board are now saying it's ok? So it's ok when you're team is included, but not when it's left out? The old system of have vs. have nots didn't work, but now it does because they're included?
I don't think that will happen anytime soon. In fact, I think if A&M goes SEC, UT will freeze them out of all sports. Remember, A&M needs UT more than UT needs A&M. If A&M goes SEC, UT would have no incentive to continue to play A&M. It would only help A&M in recruiting. While I love the rivalry, the fact is that the OU rivalry now far eclipses the A&M game for UT. Also, If PAC-16 sets up as suspected, UT will have 3 non-conf games available. I feel confident A&M won't be one of them. This will not be a friendly split.
Many UT fans want to go to the SEC. Just go to some of the fan boards and you will see it. The reason why that it is highly unlikely that UT goes to the SEC is not fear of athletic competition (I think we would be just fine) it is the belief that the SEC is inferior academically I do not take a position on that, but conference alignment is not only about athletics. UT's faculty and administration would fight an SEC alignment tooth and nail because of it.
Sorry for going on about this, but obviously in my wheelhouse. SEC chief in College Station now: http://www.texags.com/mwr/articles.asp?issue_id=1768 Will really blow me away if it happens
Do it A&M! Show how absurd this money chasing is, and the heritage we're losing. Piss it all down the drain, and piss the Texas government off enough to intervene and put a stop to this foolishness. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"My team" has never been included and in all likelihood never will, so I don't understand the comment.
You commented on my response to rapheal, so I thought we were on that discussion. As it currently sits we have certain conferences that are given priority when it comes to the BCS system. There has been a recent backlash against the BCS because it is arbitrary and freezes teams in non-BCS conferences out of Championship games. That has been the main crux of the playoff argument. Teams like Boise State, BYU, Utah, TCU SHOULD get a shot at the National Championship. As it sits they have to put up gaudy stats for multiple years to even be considered for a BCS bowl. Considering that the majority of these teams get money from the state (whether directly, or indirectly through subsidizing students tuition) and their income is tax free, I think it's ridiculous that some universities are given precedence over others. Teams in the Big 10 get bigger TV contracts, because they play in bigger bowls, which means they get more exposure, which means they get better recruits, etc. These "Amateur" athletics are BIG money, yet only select universities have true access to the money. While teams lucky enough to be in a BCS conference fight it out for guaranteed bowl births, and are selected first in the other bowls, teams on the outside compete for an outside shot of getting into a low level bowl and make a fraction of what the others schools do. That's a noted problem, and something that a lot of people take issue with, and thus are requesting a playoff system. So when Raph said this "That's why I want the playoffs as well, but until that's a possibility I want as few good teams frozen out as possible. So yes, I'd trade Kansas, K-State, Missouri, and Iowa State for Boise State, BYU, Utah, TCU as I think the chances of a National Championship contender coming out of the latter group is greater." It makes my stomach churn. Raph is (I'm assuming) one of the people that made the argument that Boise State should be considered for a National Title. What's happening here isn't solving the problem of teams being frozen out unfairly despite talent. These Super conferences are just going to be an amplification of the current problems with the BCS. There may end up being a playoff, but the money, bowl births, and preference are going to end up going to members of the Super Conference. The top dogs will rake in more money, and the gap will widen between the VIP's deemed worthy by the size of their audience.
Nobody is saying that mega-conferences solve everything for everyone. But the successes you mentioned are minor compared to BSU, Utah, BYU and TCU. For me it is about athletic success. If the big 12 goes away as is being rumored and the Mountain West gets an automatic bid then there will be fewer teams with realistic National Championship hopes that will be frozen out. It's as simple as that for me. Maybe in 10 years those teams won't be as good and maybe by then we'll have a playoff. But right now it's better for anybody who was pissed that BSU or TCU didn't get a shot.
I'm not sure why they would believe that. Here are the academic rankings by conference for the Big 12 and the SEC (the rankings are bolded): Big 12 College Name and Location U.S. News Rank Team Nickname 1 University of Texas–Austin Austin, TX 47 Longhorns 2 Texas A&M University–College Station College Station, TX 61 Aggies 3 University of Colorado–Boulder Boulder, CO 77 Buffaloes 4 Baylor University Waco, TX 80 Bears 5 Iowa State University Ames, IA 88 Cyclones 6 University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 96 Jayhawks 7 University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lincoln, NE 96 Cornhuskers 8 University of Missouri Columbia, MO 102 Tigers 9 University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 102 Sooners 10 Kansas State University Manhattan, KS Tier 3 Wildcats 11 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK Tier 3 Cowboys 12 Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX Tier 3 Red Raiders SEC 1 Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 17 Commodores 2 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 47 Gators 3 University of Georgia Athens, GA 58 Bulldogs 4 Auburn University Auburn University, AL 88 Tigers 5 University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 96 Crimson Tide 6 University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 106 Volunteers 7 University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 110 Gamecocks 8 Louisiana State University–Baton Rouge Baton Rouge, LA 128 Tigers 9 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 128 Razorbacks 10 University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 128 Wildcats 11 Mississippi State University Mississippi State, MS Tier 3 Bulldogs 12 University of Mississippi University, MS Tier 3 Rebels http://www.usnews.com/articles/educ...5/athletic-conference-breakdown-2010-sec.html Basically, Vandy has a higher rating than anything in the Big 12. Florida is equal to the highest rated school in the Big 12. After that both conferences have 8 schools rated from 58 to 128 and then a few schools that are considered tier 3 schools (2 SEC; 3 Big 12). I see no reason for anybody to believe that the SEC is inferior academically. In fact, it's easier to make the argument the other way.
At this point it appears to be relatively certain that Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech are going to the Pac-10. The latest that I've heard and read is that Texas A&M is seriously conflicted. They want to stay with Texas and go to the Pac-10, but at the same point they're seriously considering a jump to the SEC, where they can reignite their rivalry with Arkansas. The SEC doesn't make a lot of sense, as it would push them upwards to 13 teams, so it's possible they could be considering poaching someone off the east coast as well. I've heard that KU, K-State, and Missouri could be in line to join Boise State in the MWC, which already has some decent football talent in Utah and TCU. I could see them pushing for BCS status. Then again, it's possible that Kansas could jump to the Pac-10, should A&M decide to go to the SEC. I've heard that rumor as well. I really want the conference to stick together, or at least for KU, KSU, and Mizzou to stay in the same conference.
VO, we are hearing and reading the same thing... since the SEC put out word over the weekend that FSU, Miami, GT, and Clemson are not on their wish list, speculation is now centering on the SEC poaching Virginia Tech from the ACC, to go along with Texas A&M if they come along. the conference as a whole gets stronger, and the West stays pretty much Alabama's playground.
This just keeps getting weirder Over the weekend Big 12 Commish Beebe apparently secured a TV offer that would offer the Big12 17 million dollars a piece AND allow them to have their own networks. That's SEC money we're talking. Orangebloods (who's been on top of this entire thing) reported this morning that Texas was willing to commit to a 10 team big 12 under that contract. NYT reporter supported that on twitter today as well. At the same time ESPN is saying that a UT, OK, OKS, TT, etc. Movement to the Pac 10 is imminent, and could come as soon as today. On the other end you have A&M who has allegedly been invited to the SEC, that may gum the whole thing up...I'm not personally sure that A&M alone has an SEC invite..I've been reading a lot that A&M would get an invite if they brought OK or UT with. But the possibility of recruiting in Texas after A&M might be too big for the SEC to ignore. That said I'm not convinced the Texas legislature will be ok letting A&M walk and blow up the big 12 once and for all. As I said, this just keeps getting weirder. Not sure which of the following is correct... 1. Texas wants to save the Big 12 2. Texas says it wants to save the big 12 but know that A&M is leaving, which gives them another scape goat Strap on, this is going to be a bumpy ride.
Texas will continue to play in the big 12 http://www.texassports.com/genrel/061410aaa.html been a CRAZY ride...hopefuly this is long term and we can put this crap behind us. Now let's get the MWC some BCS Births and be on our way to a stable playoff system.
Well, that was sudden. The Pac-10 has to be feeling a bit like they were jilted at the alter. Now all of the sudden the Big 12 is back, albeit a bit smaller. I don't think things are done though. I could see the Big 12 inviting 2 schools to fill the void left by Nebraska and Colorado. If I had to pick two schools to watch they would be TCU and Arkansas. Bring back the old Southwest conference. With the majority of the conference now located below the Mason-Dixon line, I'd consider doing some kind of division realignment as well (maybe East and West), or possibly just bumping the Oklahoma schools and someone else up to the North division. I'll grudgingly give Texas credit for saving the Big 12, though no doubt the big factor for them was the ability to have their own TV Network. At the end of the day if that's what it takes to keep things together, then I'm all for it.
I don't think we'll see a Big 12 playoff anytime soon..even if we add 2 teams. From what I understand Texas and Oklahoma were getting irritated with one costing the other a chance at a BCS birth every year. I hope the new deal contains some mega penalties for leaving. Don't want to hitch my wagon to the likes of Texas or Missouri after this. I can see Texas abusing this conference and bolting in a few years, leaving us in the same position if we have no plans to expand. That makes me nervous. I hope ISU takes that extra money and funnels it directly back to the Football program. We're on the way up, but absolutely need to make sure we're in a place to decide our own fate if this happens again in 5 or so years.
Glad to see Texas stayed and the Big 12 will live on. Not a fan of all this "superconference" crap. Just install a playoff system and the playing field for a championship levels out.
A playoff isn't coming anytime soon. The super-conference would have improved things a little. As it stands, nothing changed for most fans. The fans of a few relatively unimportant teams should feel better, but for most of us we're no better off and no closer to a playoff.
Yeah, it's a shame that we've maintained 90 year old rivlaries, instead of switching to a mega-conference monopoly. This is was a victory for fans of college sports. There's no reason we need to split up century old rivalries for the commercialization of an amature sports and the pursuit of the all mighty dollar.
I don't know which rivalry you were concerned about losing, the governor's cup maybe or something similar? First, that rivalry isn't dependent on the big 12 existing. Second, most fans could care less about that game and won't watch it anyways. They're not better off b/c it's still around. Some traditions are are worth maintaining, some aren't. Does anybody feel their college football viewing experience is diminished b/c the +50 year tradition of Akron vs. Youngstown State ended in 1995? Some times traditions go away b/c they're replaced by better ones.
Sorry buddy, but that kind of talk pisses me off. It may not be important to YOU, but important to the NCAA landscape. The Big Eight conference was founded over 100 years ago. Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska have been playing eachother for the past 102 years, Kansas State 97, and Oklahoma 81. They were the founding teams of an original NCAA conference that would absorb 4 teams to become the big 12. Between them, they have 11 National Championships in football, and 4 in basketball, 45 in Wrestling, and a **** ton in other sports. Since going on to become the big 12 they've only added to that trophy chest. Your assestment of Iowa State being unimportant couldn't be further from the mark, and can be based off of nothing more than your assesstment of the football program. Iowa State was the first land grant university in the country, created the computer, played a pivitol roll in the Manhattan project, and has a seat at the AAU. Despite being in a state with a tiny population, it has made an incredible impact on this country. To sum it up, Football ain't everything. You might want to judge universities by something other than BCS standings. Then step back and realize that conferences affect not only athletics, but the students, communities, and research that these univeristies are able to conduct. This "unimportant school" has made incredible contributions to our society, and taking it out of the Big 12 will cost it research opportunities and money that go to numerous worthy causes. THESE are the reasons our universities were created. MONEY is the reason super conferences will be created. The pursuit of money will hurt viable institutions and will be a net negative for our society and athletics as a whole. Students athletes will cross timezones, instead of state lines. The "have not's" will close their athletic departments, and doors to thousands of NCAA athletes across the country becuase the money is being funneled into comprably fewer universities in the super conferences. University football teams were originally created for the STUDENTS. The current trend is detrimental to the STUDENTS and driven only by the pursuit of the all mighty dollar.
We're talking about college football in a college sports forum. I have nothing against Iowa State, nor do I want the university to go away. This has nothing to do with whether or not the school has made contributions to society in other areas. I'm sure Harvard has made many contributions, in many areas. In regards to football, the sport probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Ivy league. But the reality is that now it really doesn't matter much to the college football landscape how well Harvard plays football or even if they have a team. And yes, money matters in a capitalistic society, shocking I know. But the reality is that most football programs don't make money for the school. Every analysis I've seen has come to that conclusion. The broadest of those analyses have concluded that the top 25% of the football programs provide a net profit. So for those mid to bottom tier football schools, football isn't why they exist. So to sum it up, yes Iowa State may be important, but Iowa State football is not all that important to the college football landscape. And from a financial perspective it may not even be all that important to Iowa State.
