blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/06/bcs-football-realignment-update-the-pac-12-doesnt-want-to-expand/ This a pretty interesting counterpoint to the UT boosterism you get from orangebloods, Chip Brown, Barking Carnival, etc. If you want to hear the "other side" of the "everyone wants us and LHN is no problem" mantra, this is a good place to start. Helps flesh out what is really going on. Upshot: 1. The Pac 12 has the richest deal in sports, is very stable, and would prefer everything to stay as it is for a while. Scott was hot and heavy last year, but now he has his deal. 2. LHN is a huge problem for Pac 12. Dodds will have to agree to equal revenue sharing or its a no-go for us. Period. 3. The Big 12's unstability is not due to aTm leaving, its due to the "frayed" relationship between UT and OU. Basically, OU is pissed at us and UT "has overplayed its hand". It is going to bail for the Pac 12 if the Pac 12 will take them (not clear b/c of academics), and may prefer to do so WITHOUT us. What is the real truth? I figure you throw out everything Chip Brown says (ACC? WTF?) and then average out blogs like this with what we are hearing on Orangebloods, etc. In short: (1) OU really wants to leave and won't wait on us, (2) the Pac 12 is reluctant but will probably take them, (3) we can probably go too but will have to re-work LHN and share revenue, and (4) its anyone's guess whether Dodds and Espn will swallow their pride and allow their fledgling joint venture to be gutted, so there is a very good chance the Big 12 limps along for a while longer (i.e. pac 12 decides not to take OU solo) or we get left behind in a crap conference (OU bails and we won't give up LHN). .
He holds up an awful lot of things there as "fact" that don't line up with logic, or with the rumor mill. For one, he states Texas + Tech are a "package." Based on what? Says who? That may or may not be true, especially if the Tech academics prevent acceptance by the rest of the PAC 12. If I were Larry Scott, I'd be looking at Mizzou instead of Tech or OSU. Far better academics, new TV markets in the midwest, etc. Of course, we seem to be catapulting toward the next round of expansions (= superconferences) and Mizzou is a better fit for the Big 10. . . but I'd like to see a PAC 16 that includes Texas, OU, Kansas, and Missouri. Now THAT is an undeniable superconference that dominates the TV sets of the Southwest, West coast, and a good portion of the Midwest. It cherry-picks the old Big 12, keeps the academic bar reasonably high, adds the basketball tradition of Kansas, the TV sets of St. Louis, Kansas City, Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, etc.
There is a lot of BS in that blog/article that just isn't true. BTW, Aggy has bolted so the whole "PAC doesn't want to expand" point is moot.
I think its important that we hurry up and do something without weighing all the options and ramifications. A bad decision in 2011 is far better then a good and thoughtful decision in 2012.
I didn't read the full article, (only your sumamry) but to me, it seems entirely consistent with what seems to be happening to me. 1. It appears to me that all of the big players wanted to let things settle for awhile. UT doesn't want anything to happen now because they wan the LHN to settle in. After awhile, they seem to think it will be seen as no big deal. Right now while it is being seen as a big deal it takes away leverage. Even the administrators who may not see it is a big deal know how to take advantage of negotiation leverage. 2. Neither the SEC or PAC have any reason to be in a hurry about anything this year. They will react only if they have to but will if they need to. OU and Aggy are both big enough programs they they can get people to react. 3. I'm not sure that OU is pissed at UT, in fact they seem to work pretty well together. To me OU has behaved well through all of this in that they made a short statement, they are not playing it in the media, they are considering the interest of their university, and seem to be communicating at the official level (though not the fan level) 4. OU / UT seem to have a different sense of the time table, in that UT has more interest in the status quo because of the LHN and more political risk of being an early mover. I think OU would prefer to do something with Texas but they are not interested in a crappy unstable conference (thanks aggy) and will look after their own interest. They seem to be trying to become a research university and have reasons to tie themselves to a strong academic conference. I think UT would continue to play them regardless of what conference they ended up in unless it is structurally impossible for them to do so. 5. This idea that UT has a magical lock on the conference and that everyone is in lock step with us is just dumb. Especially when it comes to OU. If they go in a different direction it isn't necessarily about us. It is about them. As it should be. 6. I get the feeling that the UT admins don't necessarily agree that superconferences are a good thing and that if they wait around long enough other options may emerge. 7. I personally kinda like TT but don't see why any conference would get that excited by them. If I were building a conference I would rather have flagship schools (e.g. Mizzou) over 2nd tier schools (e.g TT) all else being equal. The only reason TT is in the conversations (in my opinion) is to try to have some regional rivalries and to make the politics easier. OSU is in the same bucket. For OU (and for conferences wanting to take OU) it is easier because less baggage to worry about (not trying to be insulting to TT or OSU) 8. Back to the LHN. It is a business contract so anything can be negotiated. They (PAC) have an incentive to sound as against it as possible but if they really want us it can be worked out. It does increase our pain in the A quotent couple with less need of us and other options becomming available means we could be sitting on the sidelines. If this isn't something we are ok with it further weakens our negotiating leverage. 9. This last point could be what the whole ACC thing is about. While it is intriguing and not a deal I had previously thought about. It could be about leverage. On the other hand it could be the actual top target and could be why OU is going another way. Doesn't feel like a serious thing to me but it does seem that little of what is actually going on is comming out from our officials so who know.
Horn89, Historically, partnered schools were in the same state: zona, oregon, washington, socal and nocal. The Pac 10 was unique in this respect: there were two schools each from Zona, Oregon and Washington, and California had 4, with 2 each in the northern and southern regions. Each of these schools had a natural rival, usually less than 100 miles apart (and sometimes just across town). That obviously changed with the addition of CU and Utah. So, with that new reality in mind, I actually like your solution. Texas and OU are natural rivals, and any KU fan will tell you they view MU as a bigger rival than KSU. 3 out of 4 are AAU schools, and OU is trying hard to get there and probably will with a Pac 16 affiliation. The only downside is that KU and Um are pretty far away. C'est la vie I suppose.
The path looks pretty clear: we are keeping the Death Star and looking for a bottle of Dom; the Aggies are going to get fit for a leather outfit and sleep in Zed's trunk; and Oklahoma is about to be the underdressed, foul-mouthed rube at a chic party.
The problem is the ACC is just as dead as the Big 12. There will be an Eastern Super Conference, but it will be made up of schools who were not absorbed by the "Midwest" (Big 10+4); Southeastern [SEC plus 3 (assuming aggy is admitted)]; and the West (PAC-12 plus 4). Take the Big East and the ACC and subtract out the top 7 schools and what is left over will be the Eastern Conference. I don't think Texas wants to be a part of that.
The Big East benefits from Notre Dame because Notre Dame has a huge fan base throughout the Big East footprint. Not to mention the BE is a relatively weak conference. It is also not uncommon for east coast conference to have non-football members. Texas and the PAC-12 has nothing in common with that scenario. Does Texas have that sort of fanbase on the West Coast? Is PAC-12 so desperate to add teams that they will give Texas a deal no other school gets? Why would the members tolerate that? Is USC desperate to play Texas? There is a lot of echo chamber here with LHN. Texas should be worried about a worst case scenario where the Big12-2 blows up, OU et al bolt, and Texas is offering a deal that no conference is willing to accept. You may be "Texas" but there are a lot of schools that don't care. And being high handed creates a lot of schadenfreude.
The Ags are leaving the Big 12 primarily because in nearly 100 years of trying to compete with Texas in the same conference in football, they have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the relative success and dominance of Texas on the field (with the exception of the cheating years of Jackie Sherrill and a handful of other successes). Selling "A&M Football" to prospective recruits hasn't worked for long stretches, so now they want to sell "SEC Football". Time will tell if they can have enough sucess in the SEC to totally make themselves over in a way that changes the dynamic. Imagine how ludicrous it will feel to the rest of the world when their fans are still obsessing over their former rival Texas when we havent played them in almost a decade.Their identity for years has been wrapped up in their hatred for Texas, much more so than Arkansas's ever was, and we have seen the void caused in the Arkansas program by Arkansas's loss of identity and inability to manufacture a new foe comparable to Texas. The best recruits in Texas still want to play for Texas or against them, and that fact will not be altered by Aggie going to the SEC. It will be the # of wins over long stretches of years that will matter to recruits, that has always been the case.
Agree with the above. They(PAC10) may not want to expand, but if that's the way it's going with other conferences, you want to expand with quality teams. Pac 10 knows the Big12 if folding. If they allow OU/texas/OSU/TT to go to another major conference, that makes that conference (be it Big10 or SEC) the default premier conference. Period, end of story. Everyone else for ever more is second place. (I'm not saying that OU/Ut makes it the best conference but the addition of two storied football powerhouses to their already strong conference does).
Lots of movement this week. A&M to the SEC. The SEC considering MO and WV. The next move may be OU and OSU to the PAC10. What does Texas do? Stay tuned.
The way the things are going in D1 NCAA football, there may, in the near future be only 4 or 5 super conferences. If the decision is to eventually implement a playoff, the rule may also be that only schools from those conferences are in and have a shot at the NC, a real NC, with the independents shut out. I think it best to negotiate the LHN deal, and get in a good conference, PAC12 or Big10. Waiting and holding on to the LHN may bite us in the *** big time if the foregoing comes to pass in the future. I guess we will see how this platys out.
Ok, so what if OU and OSU jump the gun and join the pac12. Texas says FU and goes to the SEC. We shut Oklahoma out of the state. I cant say I'm a huge fan of SEC culture or academics, but the LHN wouldnt cause as much of a stir in the SEC in my opinion. And aggie would be all happy that they still get to play us
No way we join SEC. Academics are not satisfactory and then there is the athletic culture with all the cheating as the norm. I don't see the Horns in the SEC but it is a good fit for the Ags.
The Big 10 has said they won't consider expansion until their TV contract is up in 2016. The PAC doesn't really want to expand. What if the SEC expanded and no one else did? How would that give them any advantage? I think it might put them at a disadvantage if the others would just stay put. If the PAC was sure the Big 10 would hold off, I suspect that they would as well. It would be interesting to see how that played out.
The Pac 12 schools want to play in Texas. Kids want to go to to schools where they can play at home. It is a theme that is running deep. The more access you have to recruits the better the recruits the more wins the more TV the more revenue. I want to be in a conference or situation where we play in Dallas and Houston every year with 2-3 marquee games a year.
