PAC 10 Expected To Invite 6 Big XII Schools

diabsoule · 06-03-2010, 09:15 PM

http://www.dailycamera.com/top-sports/ci_15222068

Here and a Rivals site have both reported that Pac-10 is preparing to invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. There is no timetable yet but it is sometime "in the near future". If this happens, and those six teams accept, it would dramatically alter the landscape of college athletics.

YAYareaRB · 06-03-2010, 09:22 PM

what are the chances one of them actually accepts?

wonderbredd24 · 06-03-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYareaRB

what are the chances one of them actually accepts?

If they do, it only confirms that Nebraska and Missouri are going to the Big Ten.

This certainly makes sense with all the talk of expansion, the PAC-10 and Big XII seemed left out, so why not just join together and make one super conference to compete with the new Big Ten and the SEC

I don't think it's gonna happen, but it would make sense.

JFLO · 06-03-2010, 09:25 PM

I think the biggest chance to accept would be Colorado, but I don't see it happening with any team.

If only Boise State, Utah or BYU would get a Pac-10 offer. Or TCU to the Big 12...

If Texas ends up going independent or to the Pac-10 or whatever, then TCU would be a lock to the Big 12 then right?

diabsoule · 06-03-2010, 09:30 PM

The reason for the discussions have stemmed from previous talks between the two conferences discussing a merger of sorts so that they could share revenue and tv rights. This move would just consolidate power making them one of, if not the, elite conference in NCAA football.

I think the Big XII schools will definitely consider a move over. If that happens the Big XII would cease to exist and you could all but guarantee that the Big 10 would then go after Missouri and Nebraska, which those two would no longer have to pay the exit fees. Only Big XII teams left then would be Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State.

This is definitely a situation that will need to be paid close attention to.

YAYareaRB · 06-03-2010, 09:36 PM

I hope the MW keeps the nucleus of Utah, BYU, and TCU whether or not we get Boise.

wonderbredd24 · 06-03-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYareaRB

I hope the MW keeps the nucleus of Utah, BYU, and TCU whether or not we get Boise.

I think the PAC-10 is trying to go big, but if this thing doesn't work, the Mountain West is next.

The question to me is if the Mountain West gets Boise State, do they think they are better and potentially more profitable than the PAC-10?

YAYareaRB · 06-03-2010, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

I think the PAC-10 is trying to go big, but if this thing doesn't work, the Mountain West is next.

The question to me is if the Mountain West gets Boise State, do they think they are better and potentially more profitable than the PAC-10?

I think we become better. I don't know about more profitable. Los Angeles really puts the Pac-10 over the top. USC is the professional team down there.

bearsfan_51 · 06-04-2010, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

The question to me is if the Mountain West gets Boise State, do they think they are better and potentially more profitable than the PAC-10?

I've never heard anyone ask this question. Where in the world would this profit come from?

wonderbredd24 · 06-04-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I've never heard anyone ask this question. Where in the world would this profit come from?

Television.

With Boise State in the fold, the MWC would be in position to negotiate themselves a nice contract

According to the WAC President trying to make an argument for more bowl money, he showed that the WAC was doing better than the Big East and ACC in Television ratings and attendance. And that's the WAC. An improved Mountain West is going to be right in the mix and be able to negotiate themselves a nice TV contract.

bearsfan_51 · 06-04-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

Television.

With Boise State in the fold, the MWC would be in position to negotiate themselves a nice contract

According to the WAC President trying to make an argument for more bowl money, he showed that the WAC was doing better than the Big East and ACC in Television ratings and attendance. And that's the WAC. An improved Mountain West is going to be right in the mix and be able to negotiate themselves a nice TV contract.

I would love to see the numbers that show that, on average, the WAC gets more T.V. viewers than the ACC.

OneToughGame · 06-03-2010, 10:06 PM

Rather have Boise State then Colorado in the Pac 10, That is of course if Colorado accepts.

YAYareaRB · 06-03-2010, 10:11 PM

You Cant Take Them! You Cant You Cant You Cant!

diabsoule · 06-03-2010, 11:43 PM

The Pac-10 would not invite Boise. Their just not big enough for what the Pac 10 is looking for. If the Broncos accept an invite to the Mountain West then I don't see why any of the MWC teams would bolt for the Pac 10 if both are BCS conferences. Doesn't make much sense then.

bearsfan_51 · 06-04-2010, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diabsoule

The Pac-10 would not invite Boise. Their just not big enough for what the Pac 10 is looking for. If the Broncos accept an invite to the Mountain West then I don't see why any of the MWC teams would bolt for the Pac 10 if both are BCS conferences. Doesn't make much sense then.

Money, prestige, television contract, and who said the MWC was going to be a BCS conference?

diabsoule · 06-04-2010, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Money, prestige, television contract, and who said the MWC was going to be a BCS conference?

There have been discussions about adding the MWC to the BCS due to their performance on the field. Adding Boise State would only strengthen their case, especially if they are added before July 1, I believe.

Smokey Joe · 06-04-2010, 01:21 AM

I really don't see this going down. I think the Pac-10 is hoping for at least 1 school to accept but preferably two.

However, the only two I see with any chance of joining are Colorado and Texas Tech. These two teams have a lot more reason to bolt than the other teams.

Texas and Texas A&M seemed to be tied at the hip (IIRC, that is what ruled out A&M to joining the SEC if they expanded), and I only see them leaving if 1 of two things happen:

1.) The SEC expands and brings both Texas and A&M

or

2.) Texas creates their own network, becomes independant and A&M leaves for the SEC.

However, while I think Texas probably does want to become independant, they are probably hesitant and want to see if there are any changes to the BCS where independant teams are hindered.

This **** gets too confusing.

bearsfan_51 · 06-04-2010, 01:32 AM

Something is off about this rumor. There may be something to it, but not in its current form.

The Pac-10 requires unanimous consent to add anyone. Stanford and Berkeley are not going to sign off on adding crappy academic schools like Texas Tech and Texas A&M. How do I know? They tried to do it in 1990 and it was voted down.

Brent · 06-04-2010, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Stanford and Berkeley are not going to sign off on adding crappy academic schools like Texas Tech and Texas A&M.

http://mup.asu.edu/research2009.pdf

sure about one, bud?

bearsfan_51 · 06-04-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent

http://mup.asu.edu/research2009.pdf

sure about one, bud?

Haha...I thought about you when I said that.

Yes, I'm sure. I didn't look at those rankings (bizarre methodology), but Texas A&M is the 53rd ranked research university in the U.S. according to the ARWU, which is the premier ranking system for academic research.

That isn't bad (certainly not Texas Tech or Oklahoma State bad), but I included A&M because Stanford has already turned them down for academic reasons.

Brent · 06-04-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Haha...I thought about you when I said that.

Yes, I'm sure. I didn't look at those rankings (bizarre methodology), but Texas A&M is the 53rd ranked research university in the U.S. according to the ARWU, which is the premier ranking system for academic research.

That isn't bad (certainly not Texas Tech or Oklahoma State bad), but I included A&M because Stanford has already turned them down for academic reasons.

yeah, well compared to Stanford, most school are relatively ******.

yourfavestoner · 06-07-2010, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Something is off about this rumor. There may be something to it, but not in its current form.

The Pac-10 requires unanimous consent to add anyone. Stanford and Berkeley are not going to sign off on adding crappy academic schools like Texas Tech and Texas A&M. How do I know? They tried to do it in 1990 and it was voted down.

The university presidents and chancellors have given the Pac-10 commissioner full authority to explore expansion options.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angele...ory?id=5257774

diabsoule · 06-04-2010, 12:07 PM

From Stewart Mandel's twitter:

"Beauty of the Pac-10's plan is that it doesn't affect travel as much as you'd think. Big 12 schools would make 1 West Coast trip per season."

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_...12-partnership

Link provides information that a partnership and possible assimilation of the Big XII has been in discussions.

Below is a link that shows how the the tv ratings, revenue, attendance, and rankings are between the MWC/WAC, ACC, and Big East.
http://www.arentfox.com/email/fishel...on%20Chart.pdf

Article the link is taken from which discusses the fairness of the BCS:
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-colleg...ed-to-be-fair/

njx9 · 06-04-2010, 03:50 PM

would be sort of weird to see CU bolt from the old big 8 matchups... but i guess at least our basketball team could be somewhat competitive.

lowlife · 06-04-2010, 06:48 PM

I see a lot of this as posturing.
The other big leagues making it known (via denied leaks) that they are prepared to be proactive.

Super conferences sounds cool, but will end up super ******.